Comments on Young Voters Are Energized

But they are obviously misinformed because HRC won the last primary.

Isn't this what usually happens though?

Youth gets energized.
Their candidate fails to get the nom. Youth gets depressed.
Youth doesn't bother voting in the general election.

Whatever become of the youth groups for Steve Forbes?

Youth gets energized. Their candidate fails to get the nom. Youth gets depressed. Youth doesn't bother voting in the general election.

Yep. Pretty much.

@1: I know you're just being a smartass, but NH kids (18-24 y.o.s) went for Obama 60% to HRC's 22%.

Everybody else: Hence the comparison to the last few election cycles. You guys are such incredible cynics.

The only reason you like Obama is because Michelle Lamplondooza does.

Oh god:

"However, Huckabee's son, John Mark Huckabee, at the time a 22 year-old political science major, chaired Steve Forbes' "Youth for Forbes" campaign in Arkansas."

(also)

Sorry to keep obsessing about Youth for Forbes here, but I always liked the Act Three segment in this TAL episode:

"Act Three. Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Mosh Pit.

This American Life producer Alex Blumberg tells the story of citizens who feel perfectly connected to their candidate of choice. Citizens who feel inspired by him. Some will even say he's as inspiring as "pulling a misty flip." (11 minutes)

I can't believe that was 8 years ago. Someone needs to interview those kids again.

Annie, do you know how much it sucked volunteering for Kerry, to be counting on youths who may or may not bother to turn up in order to get our guy elected?

Eff the youths. They aren't reliable voters. Candidates should never trust that they'll show up. Their votes should be icing on the cake, and we shouldn't be relying on them to win elections.

The youth vote doesn't matter? Bullshit. They can be more difficult to motivate, but most certainly can make a difference. Clinton catered to the youth vote in 1992 and rode into the White House on it. Gore forgot about them for 2000 and paid for it - looking at the difference between Clinton's 1996 performance amongst young voters and Gore's relative performance in 2000, you could argue that this is why we are where we are today.

Annie what was the increase for the other age groups?

Do you think these guys are biased?

CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement) promotes research on the civic and political engagement of Americans between the ages of 15 and 25. Although CIRCLE conducts and funds research, not practice, the projects that we support have practical implications for those who work to increase young people’s engagement in politics and civic life.

@9, eh, Clinton won because Ross Perot was in the election. Gore won more actual votes than Clinton did.

Look, some of my closest friends are youths. Oh yeah, and I myself am actually a freaking youth. But I say this, from the bottom of my cynical heart: Eff em.

Or at least? Don't count on them.

@11 - I will but point this out: Clinton won voters under 30 by a margin of 19 points in 1996. Gore won them in 2000 by a measly 2. You can't just write that off.

Every election we here that the youth vote is going to be important and every year it is not, when are people going to learn?

@10: Yes, youth turnout increased, but youth voters as percentage of all voters shot up too. CIRCLE can be as biased as it likes, but it's using other people's polling data, so why don't you check out the stats yourself?

Iowa, 2004: 17-29 year olds were 17% of the total. Iowa, 2008: 17-29 year olds were 22% of the total.

NH, 2004: 18-29 year olds were 14% of the total. NH, 2008: 18-29 year olds were 18% of the total.

I've posted all that stuff before, so sorry for the repetition.

You can't toss out stats about the final election without also indicating how the youth tended to vote in the primaries. If "their" candidate won the primaries then I'm sure a greater number of them showed up in November.

Clinton won in '92 on the over 60 vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

He won the young vote as well but the numbers were with the over 60 crowd.

No, turnout of the youth vote was high in 2004 and 2006 as well.

Personally, I think it's great. Just don't make the mistake of thinking just because people are in a certain age range they'll vote for your candidate, whoever they are.

Wow Will, a chance to agree with you - youth vote in many areas of the country will not be a good thing. What Annie should be excited about is a big progressive turnout of any age.

@18: Excited about that too. And I think those stats have gotten plenty of play--the Ds are crushing the Rs in turnout in two states where voters can choose to participate in whichever primary/caucus they prefer. Barack Obama got more votes in NH than the R winner did, for example.

@18, you're absolutely right. And frankly, I think it likely that Huckabee's charm will get the youths out in droves.

Cracked LCD!

More voters are generally a good thing.

Fewer voters are generally a bad thing.

A voter turnout of 110% or more is generally a fishy thing.

Annie, you make me want to smack my head against the table. Repeatedly. Are you Barack Obama's campaign manager on the side or something? Because you're so relentlessly "on message" it's ridiculous.

Annie sorry to make you repeat.
Is the voter turnout rate the percentage of total people in an age group or the registered to vote people in the age group that voted?

It appears that they have commissioned the poll in NH but it isn't clear in their press release

From the press release:

Because there is no actual count of the number of votes cast by young people in the New Hampshire primaries, we can only estimate their turnout rate (the percentage of eligible young
people who voted). Our turnout estimates are based on an “official vote count” released by the
Federal Election Commission (FEC) for past elections (2004 & 2000) and a “day-after vote tally” reported by the media for 2008. The 2008 voter turnout rate may rise as more votes are tallied.

Says them:

The share of primary voters is obtained from the 2008 NH Democratic and Republican exit polls and the 2004 Democratic exit poll conduced by Edison/Mitofsky and the 2000 NH Democratic and Republican exit polls conducted by Voter News Services. The number of votes cast are obtained from the Federal Election Commission (2000 and 2004) and WashingtonPost.com (as of 9:24 am eastern time, 1/9/2008). Estimated voter turnout is obtained by taking the estimated number of votes cast and dividing it by the estimated population of 18-to-29-year-old citizens and citizens over the age of 30 from the Current Population Survey (2008, 2004, and 2000).

So that's how it works. See any problems with the methodology, given that there's no more direct method?

you know, i'm beginning to notice a pattern with hillary supporters here: they bitch incessantly about perceived "unfairness," even when it does not exist. like no one on slog is constantly "on message" for hillary. right.

wait.... i think i understand why they support her now!

@19 - once again, Annie insightfully points out the massive pro-D turnout is swamping the pro-R turnout by such numbers that even the MSM is starting to clue in.

Think about it ... N.H. a Red state that usually is 2:1 GOP:Dem is something like 5:4 Dem:GOP - and Iowa is even more pro-D.

Gonna be a Blue tidal wave.

This is why Reds are starting to realize they better get Blue-friendly op-ed pieces if they don't want to be let go soon.

Will, Clinton won in NH in 1992 and 1996. Gore lost by 7,000 votes in 2000.
Kerry stomped Bush in 2004.

I'm going to bother checking Iowa except 2000, Gore beat Bush.

These are NOT red states. There is a very interesting Dem primary and a boring Repubo. I think the Dems will win the WH but your blue wave could be like your secret plan to vote transit in February.

Annie thanks again. It is a bit unclear to me where the numbers come from as my highlight comes two paragraphs after yours.

In 2008 under 30 make up 14% of the voter while the over 30 make up 86%. People under thirty are coming out at a higher rate than they have in the past. If they back progressive issues, I'm glad about it.

I'm not supporting HRC and have nothing against O - I want the Repubos out of the WH. I'd like single payer health insurance. I'd like to end the war. I'd like a huge investment in alternative energy.

Wow - I've never seen so much self-abusive wonketry. Youth will vote if you give them something - like a Cosmo or a new iPod. They won't vote because other people died securing this privilege; since if you never learned anything you can't forget anything. The reason a candidate wins is because he gets more votes than the other guy/girl. Oops - still allowed to call Hillary a girl, even though her last period came way before my last colon:oscopy?

@23: Please. Ever seen me write about "change"? I don't even particularly like "hope." If I were on Obama's payroll, I'd be in serious trouble right now.

okay annie, you just made me laugh a lot just now. and I needed a laugh, so thanks. :) and sorry i was cranky earlier.

i think you should make a tee-shirt that says, "I don't like hope or change." I bet them youths would eat 'em up. maybe while they voted in record numbers.

We must keep voting and in record numbers! Or we'll not be rid of the fucking boomers until they're all dead.

speaking as a boomer, gitai, I really hope you do, because unless you're really , really young you're gonna be middle aged or old yourself before we're all dead. Please, we've only had to suffer through two boomer preznits, not another.

if Obama loses this its time the youth in this country started lighting some fires.

If Obama loses this its time for the youth to start lighting fires

FUCK I posted the same thing twice. I'm drunk.