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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)