The 2008 presidential election, historic for an unprecedented amount of reasons, represents the first steps in a major generational transition. President-elect Obama, who registered a 66% to 32% victory amongst young voters, has ushered in the newest generation of American citizens. In his landslide Electoral College victory, Obama’s base was in significant part made up of the millennial generation, those voters under the age of 30. This astounding margin puts forth several questions about the changing political landscape and their ideology. First and foremost, is Obama’s success in large part attributable to the youth vote? And, if so, does this unprecedented margin of victory predict a stable majority for Democrats in the future?
Affirmative answers to these poignant questions would fundamentally alter the future of our country, as the entire millennial generation should be eligible to vote by 2016. In other words, as one generation begins to wane away, another rises up to become the majority. According to the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, anywhere from 21.6 million to 23.9 million young Americans voted this election. Although this will not represent the greatest percent of youth voters to turn out when eligible to vote, the largest gap between candidates in history is the more significant story. Obama dominated McCain amongst the young voters on a 2:1 ratio, thus representing the clear ideological stance of young voters on Election Day. An increase of at least 2.2 million young voters since 2004, the youth turnout percentage could end up being the highest since 1972, when the voting age was changed to 18. So, the stage for electoral significance was clearly set for young voters in 2008. Now, the question is, how did this vote affect the Electoral College?
When dealing with such small margins in significant battleground states, an overwhelming victory in one core bloc of voters can completely sway the state. In decisive battleground states like Virginia, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the share of the youth vote in the electorate was approximately 20%, quite enough to flip a state with otherwise close margins. This figure, up from about an average of 16% youth voter turnout share in these states in 2004, represented a clear opportunity for young voters to flip traditionally red states to blue states. For example, Virginia, a historically red state, saw their youth share of the electorate increase from 17% to 21%. If the unprecedented gap of youth support between candidates did not exist, it is improbable the traditional margin could have been trumped. But, given the 21% gap of support for Obama over McCain, up from a mere 8% for Kerry over Bush, and the increase in young voter share, Virginia ended up going blue for Obama. The same case existed in many of these battleground states including: Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Therefore, we can be fairly certain, with the rough survey numbers available right after the election, that the immense gap between the two candidates played a significant role in creating Obama’s winning coalition.
Looking more specifically into the young voter bloc, minority youth voter turnout was significantly slanted towards Obama as well. Young African American voters, whose entire race voted for Obama at a rate of 95% to 4%, followed suit at a rate of 95% to 5%. This gap increased from 2004, where Kerry held an 88% to 12% lead over Bush. For Latinos, whose rising population is largely responsible for Obama’s success in the mid-western states of Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, also backed the President-elect. At a rate of 76% to 19%, Obama’s support increased by 18% over Kerry’s 58%. It is important to note that, even though white young voters only supported Obama at a rate of 54% to 44%, the increasing youth minority bloc pulled this gap even wider. With this in mind, the initial stages of a changing demographic in our country are materializing. These changes, if Democrats can solidify them, would leave them with a sizable majority of the growing minority vote.
Now that we have been able to observe the youth trends, we can easily tell that Obama’s landslide victory was at least partially attributable to the youth vote. As far as the youth vote is concerned, had John Kerry seen this type of gap, instead of splitting the youth vote in several new Obama states, we may not even be discussing this scenario. With that said, it is clear this “Future Majority,” or next generation of tomorrow, swayed to the left this Election Day. But, can the Democrats translate this success today into a large majority base of left-leaning voters tomorrow? The answer lies within how each party approaches the next couple of elections.
According to Young Voter Strategies, partisanship develops during the youth voting years. And, once this loyalty is developed, it can remain an entire lifetime. For this reason, it is crucial for the Democrats to cement this support before the Republicans have the opportunity to reverse it. That the Democrats even have the chance to create such a strong majority for the future is truly a spectacular development. Thus, the party that can solidify the support of the youth now can develop a dependably stable voting bloc for several elections. For Democrats, the most important thing is to realize that these voters, just because they are voting Democratic, does not mean that they are a sure thing for the future. With 27% of young voters identifying themselves as independents, the tides can change at any moment. For Republicans, the most important thing is to devote more resources to this group before it is too late. Since approximately a quarter of young voters are independent identifiers, they are not linked to any party just yet. This optimistic tidbit of information seems to wither away when one realizes that Obama’s resounding youth gap necessitated at least a solid portion of these independent young voters to support him. By the looks of this 2008 election, the window of opportunity to solidify our next generation’s support is closing for the Republican Party.
For Further Reading:
http://www.futuremajority.com/
http://www.rockthevote.com/assets/publications/research/rtv_partisanship_is_a_habit-2007.pdf
http://www.civicyouth.org/
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_04_Minority_vote.pdf
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
The Race for the Youth
Since the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama has enjoyed unprecedented levels of youth support and involvement. On the other hand, John McCain, who is a self-professed computer illiterate, has had considerable trouble connecting with this millennial generation. The Obama campaign has clearly developed a connection with this generation in the areas of our political landscape where his opponent has been unable. By communicating his transformational, bipartisan message through the mediums most familiar to the youth, Obama has been able to trump McCain in effectiveness of their respective youth operations.
Barack Obama’s campaign has been serious about youth outreach since very early on in the primaries when they hired Facebook’s co-founder, Chris Hughes, to oversee their social networking. This popular site for the youth gave the Obama campaign the ability to network thousands of younger voters together with the ability to contact them all at once in a moment’s time. While the McCain campaign has had a presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace as well, it has been a considerably more difficult sell to younger voters. McCain, who proclaimed his inability to use a computer, clearly would have trouble convincing young voters of his campaign message through this medium. With the medium significantly affecting the message in this case, Obama’s relative technological savvy, has bolstered his message. It is increasingly difficult for young voters to get past the fact that McCain himself cannot even connect with them on the same technological level, which muddles the actual message with concerns of McCain’s being out-of-touch.
Barack Obama has even ventured into racially specific social networking sites to engage African, Asian, and Latino American voters. By making use of the sites blackplanet.com, migente.com, and asianave.com, Obama has used social networking to engage minority, younger voters. For Obama, a candidate who has made use of his biracial background, this outreach to specific youth, ethnic coalitions is to be expected. The real concern with putting so much confidence in social networking is whether or not it is actually the most effective mode of message communication.
According to Heather Smith of Young Voter Strategies, a GWU based research and strategy organization, Facebook and Myspace have not been as effective as their popularity may recommend. While the technology is certainly useful for communicating with the youth, the most effective way to target youth voters is still personal contact. While this notion would seem to put Obama and McCain back on an equal playing field, one must remember the valuable communicatory power of social networking sites. Even though they may not boast the personal potency of canvassing or face-to-face contact, they do allow candidates to put together a vast network of youth who can carry out the more personal tactics.
Barack Obama and his campaign obviously saw the potential to tap into this millennial voting bloc, which has been increasing in turnout by the millions. In 2004, the country saw an increase of 5 million in youth turnout of this generation and then another 2 million in the 2006-midterm elections. Both Obama and McCain have hired youth vote directors, Leigh Arsenault and Joe Pounder respectively. While the Obama campaign likes to boast about its 700 nationwide Youth for Obama chapters, and the McCain likes to note their youth chairs in all fifty states, the main concern will remain to be the translation of these tactics into material results.
Furthermore, the Obama campaign has been relentless in its attempts to reach young voters even closer to home than with social networking sites. Instead of the computers, the campaign is now targeting their pockets. Through the use of text messaging, the Obama campaign has built a large database of young voter’s cell phone numbers. With this technology being employed mostly by young voters, it gives the Obama campaign a clear entrance into the young voter’s mind. This strategy has been unmatched and untouched by the McCain campaign. This certainly addresses the concern of translating support into material results on election day because instead of having to check the computer, which students do not always have access to, a get out of the vote message can be sent directly to their phones. Also, by visiting a far greater amount of college campuses than McCain, he has been able to put together a large database of young volunteers, those who can hopefully turn out their friends on Election Day.
Tony Cani, the political director of the Young Democrats of America, claims that the most effective way to translate support into votes is by connecting with the youth where they live and hang out. On this note, the Obama campaign has made a concentrated effort to visit college campuses across the country. Between February and July alone, Barack Obama held rallies at 31 campuses to John McCain’s mere 3. Although these visits were during the primary season, it is clear which candidate has systematically created a support system amongst younger voters, specifically those in college. Closer to the election, though, both campaigns have been open to the inclusion of younger voters in their campaigns. Similarly, both campaigns have enabled their websites to allow for user generated content, like videos, with policy ideas. The McCain campaign created Generation08, or McCainSpace, while the Obama website encourages younger voters on their Students for Obama page to “tell us your policy ideas.” The similarity of their general strategies towards the youth begs the question of why there is such a large gap of youth support favoring Obama over McCain.
Some may say that the gap is attributable to McCain’s comparable neglect for college-aged students. His website has a coalition for younger voters named “Future Leaders for McCain.” The range of this group is 25 to 40 year olds. Contrarily, Obama’s Students for Barack Obama has a range that expands from high school students to graduate students. In addition, he makes up for the young voters that are older than student age with his Generation Obama group, a coalition devoted to a grassroots network of support led by all voters under 40 for his candidacy. As such, it is clear that McCain has had a much less concentrated effort to engage college students than his opponent, Barack Obama.
A more substantive reason does exist, though, for this overwhelming support of Obama over McCain. On issues pertinent to younger voters, like the War in Iraq and college affordability, Obama’s message has resonated more than McCain’s. He has spoken out against the War and in favor of helping college students pay for their education in return for service to the community. These issues and Obama’s stance, regardless of the generally similarity youth outreach strategies, has most likely led to the large gap between the two in youth support.
Whether this gap remains, though, is in large part hinging on the effectiveness of each respective operation. It seems that Obama’s message of bipartisanship and unity, post-racial politics, and change has been most effective in connecting with the millennial generation. A generation that has embraced the idea of diversity, young voters seem to be more tolerant than any generation of the potential to have an African American as president. The historic nature of Obama’s campaign, and his ability to deracialize in favor of universal popularity, has also played a major role in his pre-election support levels amongst young voters.
While it seems as if Obama should garner a significantly greater amount of youth voters, the key is getting these traditionally apathetic voters out to the polls. In such a close race, Obama knows how crucial this actually as. Consider his recent speech in the battleground state of Missouri. He appealed to the youth by urging them to realize that “it is gonna get nasty” in the days before the election. By doing this, he preempting the potential negative discourse that could demobilize the youth, instead letting them know that it is to be expected. He ended this appeal by directly imploring “every single young person” there to grab five friends and go to the polls because their “future depend[ed] on it.” A calculated similarity to the extreme networking focused on throughout his campaign, Obama knows that in order to win his grassroots efforts must carry him across the finish line, not just drop him off before it.
For Further Reading:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/last.weekend/
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1639707,00.html
http://go.barackobama.com/page/content/gohomepage
http://futureleaders.johnmccain.com/FutureLeaders.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/opinion/main4333168.shtml
http://www.nysun.com/national/the-youth-vote-attracts-both-campaigns/85758/
http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_/club/58707/41158.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08youth.html
http://students.barackobama.com/page/content/sfbohome
Barack Obama’s campaign has been serious about youth outreach since very early on in the primaries when they hired Facebook’s co-founder, Chris Hughes, to oversee their social networking. This popular site for the youth gave the Obama campaign the ability to network thousands of younger voters together with the ability to contact them all at once in a moment’s time. While the McCain campaign has had a presence on social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace as well, it has been a considerably more difficult sell to younger voters. McCain, who proclaimed his inability to use a computer, clearly would have trouble convincing young voters of his campaign message through this medium. With the medium significantly affecting the message in this case, Obama’s relative technological savvy, has bolstered his message. It is increasingly difficult for young voters to get past the fact that McCain himself cannot even connect with them on the same technological level, which muddles the actual message with concerns of McCain’s being out-of-touch.
Barack Obama has even ventured into racially specific social networking sites to engage African, Asian, and Latino American voters. By making use of the sites blackplanet.com, migente.com, and asianave.com, Obama has used social networking to engage minority, younger voters. For Obama, a candidate who has made use of his biracial background, this outreach to specific youth, ethnic coalitions is to be expected. The real concern with putting so much confidence in social networking is whether or not it is actually the most effective mode of message communication.
According to Heather Smith of Young Voter Strategies, a GWU based research and strategy organization, Facebook and Myspace have not been as effective as their popularity may recommend. While the technology is certainly useful for communicating with the youth, the most effective way to target youth voters is still personal contact. While this notion would seem to put Obama and McCain back on an equal playing field, one must remember the valuable communicatory power of social networking sites. Even though they may not boast the personal potency of canvassing or face-to-face contact, they do allow candidates to put together a vast network of youth who can carry out the more personal tactics.
Barack Obama and his campaign obviously saw the potential to tap into this millennial voting bloc, which has been increasing in turnout by the millions. In 2004, the country saw an increase of 5 million in youth turnout of this generation and then another 2 million in the 2006-midterm elections. Both Obama and McCain have hired youth vote directors, Leigh Arsenault and Joe Pounder respectively. While the Obama campaign likes to boast about its 700 nationwide Youth for Obama chapters, and the McCain likes to note their youth chairs in all fifty states, the main concern will remain to be the translation of these tactics into material results.
Furthermore, the Obama campaign has been relentless in its attempts to reach young voters even closer to home than with social networking sites. Instead of the computers, the campaign is now targeting their pockets. Through the use of text messaging, the Obama campaign has built a large database of young voter’s cell phone numbers. With this technology being employed mostly by young voters, it gives the Obama campaign a clear entrance into the young voter’s mind. This strategy has been unmatched and untouched by the McCain campaign. This certainly addresses the concern of translating support into material results on election day because instead of having to check the computer, which students do not always have access to, a get out of the vote message can be sent directly to their phones. Also, by visiting a far greater amount of college campuses than McCain, he has been able to put together a large database of young volunteers, those who can hopefully turn out their friends on Election Day.
Tony Cani, the political director of the Young Democrats of America, claims that the most effective way to translate support into votes is by connecting with the youth where they live and hang out. On this note, the Obama campaign has made a concentrated effort to visit college campuses across the country. Between February and July alone, Barack Obama held rallies at 31 campuses to John McCain’s mere 3. Although these visits were during the primary season, it is clear which candidate has systematically created a support system amongst younger voters, specifically those in college. Closer to the election, though, both campaigns have been open to the inclusion of younger voters in their campaigns. Similarly, both campaigns have enabled their websites to allow for user generated content, like videos, with policy ideas. The McCain campaign created Generation08, or McCainSpace, while the Obama website encourages younger voters on their Students for Obama page to “tell us your policy ideas.” The similarity of their general strategies towards the youth begs the question of why there is such a large gap of youth support favoring Obama over McCain.
Some may say that the gap is attributable to McCain’s comparable neglect for college-aged students. His website has a coalition for younger voters named “Future Leaders for McCain.” The range of this group is 25 to 40 year olds. Contrarily, Obama’s Students for Barack Obama has a range that expands from high school students to graduate students. In addition, he makes up for the young voters that are older than student age with his Generation Obama group, a coalition devoted to a grassroots network of support led by all voters under 40 for his candidacy. As such, it is clear that McCain has had a much less concentrated effort to engage college students than his opponent, Barack Obama.
A more substantive reason does exist, though, for this overwhelming support of Obama over McCain. On issues pertinent to younger voters, like the War in Iraq and college affordability, Obama’s message has resonated more than McCain’s. He has spoken out against the War and in favor of helping college students pay for their education in return for service to the community. These issues and Obama’s stance, regardless of the generally similarity youth outreach strategies, has most likely led to the large gap between the two in youth support.
Whether this gap remains, though, is in large part hinging on the effectiveness of each respective operation. It seems that Obama’s message of bipartisanship and unity, post-racial politics, and change has been most effective in connecting with the millennial generation. A generation that has embraced the idea of diversity, young voters seem to be more tolerant than any generation of the potential to have an African American as president. The historic nature of Obama’s campaign, and his ability to deracialize in favor of universal popularity, has also played a major role in his pre-election support levels amongst young voters.
While it seems as if Obama should garner a significantly greater amount of youth voters, the key is getting these traditionally apathetic voters out to the polls. In such a close race, Obama knows how crucial this actually as. Consider his recent speech in the battleground state of Missouri. He appealed to the youth by urging them to realize that “it is gonna get nasty” in the days before the election. By doing this, he preempting the potential negative discourse that could demobilize the youth, instead letting them know that it is to be expected. He ended this appeal by directly imploring “every single young person” there to grab five friends and go to the polls because their “future depend[ed] on it.” A calculated similarity to the extreme networking focused on throughout his campaign, Obama knows that in order to win his grassroots efforts must carry him across the finish line, not just drop him off before it.
For Further Reading:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/last.weekend/
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1639707,00.html
http://go.barackobama.com/page/content/gohomepage
http://futureleaders.johnmccain.com/FutureLeaders.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/08/opinion/main4333168.shtml
http://www.nysun.com/national/the-youth-vote-attracts-both-campaigns/85758/
http://community.mccainspace.com/kickapps/_/club/58707/41158.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08youth.html
http://students.barackobama.com/page/content/sfbohome
Monday, October 27, 2008
Schlepping for Barack Obama
Barack Obama has found his comfort zone within younger voting blocs throughout the 2008 election. Contrarily, his support amongst older, elderly voters has been much less apparent. Specifically during the 2008 Democratic primaries, Jewish elderly voters of Florida were not pleased when Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race making Barack Obama the nominee. Normally, if a narrowly characterized bloc was upset with the candidate, it would not make that significant of a difference. In this case, the particular group of voters was located in Florida, a hotly contested electoral state where a small number of voters can make a monumental difference.
These older voters were suspect of Obama’s candidacy for reasons concerning race and religion. More specifically, the Jewish elderly voters were reluctant to vote for Obama not only because he was an African American, but also because of rumors that he was Muslim, The older voters, who typically are not as open to racial diversity as the youth, were less willing to take the progressive stride of supporting a black candidate. As if this were not enough, these same voters were suspicious that Obama was of Muslim descent, which was antithetical to their strong Israel ties.
Contrary to these perceptions, Obama actually is of the Christian faith and has been outspoken in his support of Israel. In order to help these elderly Jewish voters past these misconceptions, an organization was started called “The Great Schlep.” Their mission is to send the grandchildren of these voters to Florida to convince them to support Obama by reporting the truth. In a typical fashion, the organization enlisted a celebrity, Sarah Silverman, to appeal to the youth to go along with their purpose.
Throughout the video, Silverman uses humor to help the youth realize that their grandparents are very similar to Barack Obama. She says that even though it may not seem this way, “we’re all the same inside.” By using this message of unity, she plays on the youth’s comparative tolerance for people of all races. She goes on to urge young voters to “schlep” down to Florida in order to convince their grandparents, those who think Obama is devastatingly different, that he is just like them. Although some of her comparisons are rather absurd, it puts into perspective the entire situation at hand as one of unnecessary concern with false matters. While comparing “elderly Jewish grandmas to” Obama, or the “young black man,” she claims that they both love “tracksuits” and that their “car of choice is a Cadillac.” Even though these are not substantive similarities, the purpose of this humor is to excite the youth to the idea of spreading their message of racial and religious tolerance to their grandparents.
Although Silverman portrays this serious issue in a rather lighthearted tone, the premise of using the youth to address controversial issues with their family has been a significant tactic this campaign season. In an earlier blog post, it is mentioned that Obama encourages the youth to have “the Talk” with their parents about his candidacy. The main problem for Obama is the fact that many of these Jewish elderly voters are part of a less tolerant generation. This video addresses this problem by encouraging the youth, the grandkids, to talk with their grandparents. This could be particularly effective due to the family connection that these two types of voters have in common. Although they may be part of separate generations, their familial bond could be the familiar trust necessary to help debunk his perceived mysteriousness for some of these older voters. After all, the grandchildren’s support of Obama could enlighten their grandparents to see through the lies.
In addition, “The Great Schlep” provides talking points for the youth to help with this endeavor. In their talking points document, they urge the young voters to address the issue of race by saying “he’s black, let’s talk about it.” The organization firmly believes that the most effective way to debunk any myths about Obama’s candidacy is to address them head on. Specifically, they urge young voters to distance Obama from the “confrontational tactics” of “black leadership” in the 60s and 70s. This plays down the racialized conception that some of these older voters may have had for Obama, instead creating a new perception of post-racial, universalized politics.
Through the use of Facebook, a popular social networking site, “The Great Schlep” has been organizing youth from across the country to make the trip to Florida. Already, the group has 23,756 members and is constantly growing. This alone shows the great reception that initiatives like this one have had and will continue to have with the youth. In this election particularly, this operation displays the youth’s presence as more than just a voting bloc, but also as a trusted entrance into the homes of older voters across the country.
For Further Reading:
http://www.thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html
http://s3.amazonaws.com/jcer/483/TGS-TalkingPoints.pdf
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/great.schlep/index.html
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Great-Schlep/33348956673?sid=48689011dcd467e7d2a81c3f3c471eaa&refurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fs.php%3Finit%3Dq%26q%3Dthe%2Bgreat%2Bschlep%26ref%3Dts%26sid%3D48689011dcd467e7d2a81c3f3c471eaa&ref=s
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
MoveOn's Vision for Tomorrow: A McCain-Free White House
Moveon.org, an active liberally charged political action committee, has attempted to bridge the gap between youth and older support for Barack Obama. For this election, the organization created a website named “Partnership for a McCain-Free White House” to aid younger voters in convincing their parents to vote for Obama. The organization cites that 3 out of 5 parents may be voting for McCain, which, coupled with the greater ratio of youth support for Obama, means that many of young Obama supporter’s parents are potential McCain supporters. As such, Moveon.org is directly appealing to young Obama supporters through the internet to have “The Talk” with their parents about why they should support Barack Obama too.
By framing this situation colloquially as “The Talk”, MoveOn is connecting with the youth in a familiar internet medium using conversational language. Instead of using out-of-touch language focused on hard to understand topics, MoveOn is able to create a comfortable scenario for young voters to approach their parents. Specifically on their site, MoveOn provides clever, rather humorous indications of “warning signs” of parental support for McCain. Instead of using policy specifics, MoveOn concentrates on a more mocking tone towards McCain by claiming supporters of McCain may “not know the number of homes they own, cars they drive, or years the United States should stay in Iraq.” This statement was in reference to McCain’s ambiguity on his home and car ownership in addition to several different statements of how many years the country should stay in Iraq.
Even the Obama campaign itself is partaking in this sort of appeal through a webpage that urges the youth to “talk to [their] parents” to “change the world.” On this page, he uses the term “The Talk” accompanied by several talking points for young voters to convince their parents to vote for him. The campaign clearly is appealing to the youth who tend to connect with projections of a hopeful future. Similar to MoveOn, the Obama campaign does not request that young voters discuss specific policy details with their parents, instead requesting that they not “worry about knowing everything about policy issues.”
McCain’s youth operation seems to be much less prominent, especially on his website. While Obama has a Students for Obama page, the McCain campaign neglects to mention students or the youth as a coalition on their drop down menu of coalition groups. MoveOn is capitalizing on this by focusing on the youth population, one that McCain has not concentrated on as much as Obama. Under this premise, MoveOn can convince the youth to vote for Obama and simultaneously enter the minds of their parents, older votes, by having them talk with them.
While McCain does list one of his coalitions as “Future Leaders for McCain,” the designated age bracket of this coalition is 25-40, which leaves out college-aged students. This demonstrates McCain’s inaction in attempting to mobilize college campuses as Obama has. This particular video, therefore, is obviously making use of Obama’s emphasis on the youth since MoveOn is vesting a lot of interest in young voter’s ability to sway their parents and become involved in the political landscape. The video illuminates the stark contrast between Obama and McCain in terms of youth support. Since the youth in politics is considered to be voters aged 18-36, McCain is conveniently cutting out all voters less than 25, most of whom this video would resonate with. For this reason, a video directed at the youth to sway their parents for Obama could be extremely salient for MoveOn’s message of keeping McCain out of the White House.
The page on the Obama campaign’s website that MoveOn links young voters to has a section called “Know the Issues,” which provides general explanations for major policy issues. Therefore, both MoveOn and Obama are urging young voters to discuss the issues of “education, healthcare, jobs, Iraq and foreign affairs.” These issues are also very universal ones that transcend the issue of race. This idea plays into the deracialization of Obama’s campaign that creates one universal coalition of support instead of fractioned, racially charged ones.
MoveOn uses the video medium of communication to relate its message to the youth. In their main video, they feature several young voters in addition to stars of the hit show “Gossip Girls” to appeal to the youth. In the video, “Gossip Girls” stars Blake Lively and Penn Badgley “encourage [young voters] to talk to [their] parents about the risks of voting McCain.” This mandate from celebrities is MoveOn’s attempt at connecting with the youth so that they back their anti-McCain cause. These celebrities would be most familiar with high school and college-aged students, ones that are not included in McCain’s age bracket of “Future Leaders.” Also, the video does not only feature white young voters, but African American ones too, which contributes to the diverse feel of the advertisement. Once again, this appeals to young voters who are more open to and cognizant of diversity than prior generations.
In this election, it has been particularly convenient for candidates and political organizations to capitalize on the unprecedented levels of youth excitement to reach young voter’s parents. If this youth excitement remains, campaigns and political organizations will continue to make use of young voter’s potential influence over their parents to gain their support.
For Further Reading:
http://www.mccainfreewhitehouse.org/index.html
http://www.mccainfreewhitehouse.org/having-the-talk.html
http://www.mccainfreewhitehouse.org/warning-signs.html
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/thetalk
http://futureleaders.johnmccain.com/FutureLeaders.htm
Monday, October 13, 2008
Connecting with the African American Youth
The unprecedented levels of youth involvement in this 2008 presidential election have contributed to the historic aura that has encompassed our nation over the past year. The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation has coordinated with these youth efforts through the use of their Black Youth Vote! division. Founded in 1996, this grassroots organization seeks to empower young African Americans, who make up 50% of the entire black electorate, to impact change for the future. This organization has recognized the fact that the future of the black community, and our society as a whole, is dependent upon the next generation—our youth.
Black Youth Vote! focuses on a five-step plan for the empowerment of the African American youth and the youth as a whole. First, they intend to educate young adults on the importance of the connection between voting and every day public policy implications. They have furthered this cause by mounting a media campaign that promotes voter registration and issue education for young adults. Next, they define the impact that the youth vote will have in elections across the country. This process allows them to continue to create education and mobilization initiatives for the future in the most effectual regions of the country. Finally, they have established the necessary presence across the country to continue educating young voters about future elections.
The materialization of this plan can be seen on their website www.ncbcp.org/byv. Specifically, they reach out to the youth through creative rap lyrics and an audio attachment that promote involvement in politics. In a song titled “The Movement,” Black Youth Vote! encourages “action” instead of “talking” in order to “start making them listen.” The underlying concept being that the adult generation has set such low expectations for the youth that they do not even consider their views anymore. The song continues to ask the youth if they “know decisions that’s being made” with respect to “Medicaid, financial aid, minimum wage, and the war on Iraq.” Shrewdly, the organization focuses on issues that not only are crucial to society, but also are vital for the advancement of African Americans.
Black Youth Vote! has also enlisted the likes of celebrities like Bow Wow to inspire the youth to get involved. The use of celebrities has been especially helpful for connecting with the youth, a group fascinated by celebrity culture and easily wooed by the decisions of the famous. Bow Wow visited colleges in North Carolina earlier this month to initiate his Walk Across America Tour that intends to increase civic involvement amongst African American men and women ages 18-35. Bow Wow, who is requesting that the youth pledge to educate themselves, register, and vote, has made use of the social networking sites MySpace and YouTube. These sites, ones that have become embedded in the culture of the youth, are very useful for connecting with young Americans across the nation. By making videos, Bow Wow has been able to enter the homes of young Americans to personally implore them to follow his requests for civic involvement.
The efforts of Black Youth Vote! in conjunction with Bow Wow epitomize the optimal approach to connecting with the youth. Through new media and celebrity involvement, Black Youth Vote! has been able to mobilize young African American voters to take part in politics. As a non-partisan organization, they intend to continue their efforts to make young African Americans vote and educate themselves on the issues instead of requesting their allegiance to a specific party. The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation’s attempt to include the youth in 1996 through Black Youth Vote! has obviously paid off as youth involvement is record breaking in this election cycle.
For Further Reading:
http://www.bowwow87.com/
http://blackyouthvote2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/bow-takes-to-road-charlotte-and.html
http://www.ncbcp.org/byv/
Black Youth Vote! focuses on a five-step plan for the empowerment of the African American youth and the youth as a whole. First, they intend to educate young adults on the importance of the connection between voting and every day public policy implications. They have furthered this cause by mounting a media campaign that promotes voter registration and issue education for young adults. Next, they define the impact that the youth vote will have in elections across the country. This process allows them to continue to create education and mobilization initiatives for the future in the most effectual regions of the country. Finally, they have established the necessary presence across the country to continue educating young voters about future elections.
The materialization of this plan can be seen on their website www.ncbcp.org/byv. Specifically, they reach out to the youth through creative rap lyrics and an audio attachment that promote involvement in politics. In a song titled “The Movement,” Black Youth Vote! encourages “action” instead of “talking” in order to “start making them listen.” The underlying concept being that the adult generation has set such low expectations for the youth that they do not even consider their views anymore. The song continues to ask the youth if they “know decisions that’s being made” with respect to “Medicaid, financial aid, minimum wage, and the war on Iraq.” Shrewdly, the organization focuses on issues that not only are crucial to society, but also are vital for the advancement of African Americans.
Black Youth Vote! has also enlisted the likes of celebrities like Bow Wow to inspire the youth to get involved. The use of celebrities has been especially helpful for connecting with the youth, a group fascinated by celebrity culture and easily wooed by the decisions of the famous. Bow Wow visited colleges in North Carolina earlier this month to initiate his Walk Across America Tour that intends to increase civic involvement amongst African American men and women ages 18-35. Bow Wow, who is requesting that the youth pledge to educate themselves, register, and vote, has made use of the social networking sites MySpace and YouTube. These sites, ones that have become embedded in the culture of the youth, are very useful for connecting with young Americans across the nation. By making videos, Bow Wow has been able to enter the homes of young Americans to personally implore them to follow his requests for civic involvement.
The efforts of Black Youth Vote! in conjunction with Bow Wow epitomize the optimal approach to connecting with the youth. Through new media and celebrity involvement, Black Youth Vote! has been able to mobilize young African American voters to take part in politics. As a non-partisan organization, they intend to continue their efforts to make young African Americans vote and educate themselves on the issues instead of requesting their allegiance to a specific party. The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation’s attempt to include the youth in 1996 through Black Youth Vote! has obviously paid off as youth involvement is record breaking in this election cycle.
For Further Reading:
http://www.bowwow87.com/
http://blackyouthvote2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/bow-takes-to-road-charlotte-and.html
http://www.ncbcp.org/byv/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)