Young Voters Will Decide the Election

by Chris Bowers, Thu Sep 02, 2004 at 01:58:07 PM EDT

The single most important television event of this election cycle is not the DNC, the RNC or the debates. Instead, it was the MTV Video Music Awards this past Sunday when, during the OutKast performance in the final ten minutes of the show, the concert hall erupted into a mock-convention complete with state delegations and campaign placards. This is because in this election, the most important voting demographic is 18-29 year-olds. In fact, they are so important that no other demographic even comes close.

If John Kerry wins this election, it is becoming increasingly clear that it will be on the strength of the major demographic (18-29 year-olds made up 17% of the 2000 vote) that has swung more dramatically against Bush since 2000 than any other. According to 2000 exit polls, 18-29 year olds broke 48% for Gore, 46% for Bush, and 6% other. This is only slightly different from the nation as a whole, which went 48.38% Gore, 47.87% Bush, and 3.75% other. However, Bush's current numbers among 18-29 year-olds are far lower than his numbers with the nation as a whole:

Bush Support in Recent Polls
	 18-29	 Total	  Date
Pew	  35	  45	  8/10
Newsweek   32	  42	  7/30

There is also this piece of information form a recent Washington Post article (emphasis mine): In the latest Post-ABC News poll, taken immediately after the Democratic National Convention, Kerry led Bush 2 to 1 among registered voters younger than 30. Among older voters, the race was virtually tied. About 1 in 6 voters in 2000 was between 18 and 29 years old. [Kerry led 52-45 nationally among RVs in that poll] (...)

Bush's problems with younger voters began long before the Democratic convention, Post-ABC polls suggest. The last time Bush and Kerry were tied among the under-30 crowd was in April. In the five surveys since then, Bush has trailed Kerry by an average of 18 percentage points. [In those five polls Kerry led by an average of 5 points nationally]

This race is static except for voters under 30. They are the persuadables, the swingers, the undecideds. They are not polarized like the rest of the nation.

In 2000, one of the main reasons Gore was unable to put Bush away is because he lost the younger voters Clinton had won for Democrats for the first time since the 1970's. In fact, that is the only significant pro-Clinton demographic where Gore noticeably under-performed relative to the national popular vote. Clinton won victories far in excess his national popular victories in this demographic in 1996, and in 1992 Bush barely defeated Perot among the 18-29 set. Had Gore equaled the 10-12% partisan advantage Clinton held among 18-29 year olds, he would have won the popular vote by 2.2-2.5% instead of 0.5%. That is enough to take Florida, probably New Hampshire, and maybe even Nevada.

It is easy for pundits to dismiss young voters both because no pundit is between 18-29 and because young people generally do not turn out to vote at significant rates. However, even though turnout was low among this group in 2000, it was still 17% of the vote! Further, as the same WP article quoted above notes, 18-29 year olds are as volatile a swing group as you can find:

Dole lost to President Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 34 percent among 18-to-29-year-olds. Bush's father split the young vote in 1988 and lost to Clinton by nine points in 1992. The Reagan era marked the recent high-water mark for the GOP with younger voters, who gave the Gipper his biggest victory margin of any age group in 1984. Any voting demographic that is large is important (17% of the vote in 2000). Any voting group that is volatile and prone to large swings is important (voted overwhelmingly for Reagan and Clinton; swung ten points from 1996 to 2000). Any voting group that turns out in wildly varying degrees is important (over 50% turnout in 1992, under 40% turnout in 2000). Any voting group that has changed significantly while the rest of the country remains polarized and static is important (10-15 point swing since 2000). The 18-29 year old demographic has every single criteria that makes a demographic important in this election. This cannot be said about any other demographic to the same degree.

If Kerry is going to win in November, he must continue his success in reaching young voters. Strike that--he must continue to do even more to reach them, even to excite them. Gore ignored young voters in 2000 and paid the price. Clinton openly wooed them and governed for eight years.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Comments

9 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Gore drove them away

Absolutely...Gore made a million mistakes, and picking Lieberman was possibly his biggest. I was 25 in 2000-I voted for Harry Browne because of that censor-happy religious right prick (I live in California-I would have held my nose and voted for Gore if it would have mattered).

by Geotpf 2004-09-02 04:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Al Gore won

And nothing will ever change that, despite small minds peeing in a comment space four years later.

Kennedy became president with less a margin of victory, yet no one denegrates him for blowing it.

It's just digusting how Al Gore could get ripped off by the worst Supreme Court decision in history and yet Merino minds of mush still blame Al Gore. What perfect tools for the Republicans.

by paradox 2004-09-03 04:10AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Al Gore won

No, Gore screwed up as well.

Look, had Gore requested a state-wide recount, he would have won the recount, and I believe the courts would have agreed with it. He instead decided to only recount the counties he thought were favorable to him, and he lost the court decision.

The election was a tie, or close to it, and under our rules of electing a president, close races are handled very poorly.

Gore made a bunch of mistakes. Another one was refusing to let Clinton campaign for him. So he was running on the Clinton record, but running away from Clinton himself. It was as confusing a message as "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it".

True, Gore would have won if one more supreme court justice was a liberal. But had Gore campaigned well, it wouldn't even have been an issue.

Plus, there was always Ralph Fucking Nader in the mix.

Bush won due to a perfect storm of the above factors.

It won't happen again.

by Geotpf 2004-09-03 10:53AM | 0 recs

permalink

Turnover

This year's 18-29 year olds were 14-25 last time. Many were in high school, and a large percentage were in college in 2000.

What are their issues? College tuition, jobs jobs jobs, and security.

What don't they care about? Retirement, culture wars (under 30s are much more tolerant), Vietnam, and taxes (they don't pay income taxes).

While many are married, few have children yet - but the young parents among them are almost a separate demographic: very worried about day care costs, health care, and public schools.

Does this suggest that Kerry should keep having surrogates talk about Bush needing to re-start the draft? Its the easiest way to get college-age guys to listen to politics in a hurry.

by Silent E 2004-09-02 04:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Turnover

Actually, almost half of all childbirths each year are to a mother in her 20s. 20 somethings visit the emergency room more frequently than any othe demographic, and we're at the highest risk of STDs.

Throw in the possibility of Supreme Court appointments next term overthrowing Roe . . . 20s are very gettable on this issue, and it seriously affects us.

by Smiley 2004-09-02 08:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Turnover

As may be - but I think if you look at the demographics of 18-29 voters, compared to the 18-29 population as a whole, you'll find that the voters are, as with all demographics, more likely to be college educated, more likely to be on the older end of the age range (closer to 30), more likely to have stable living situations, and more likely to have jobs.

18 year olds, in particular, are very difficult to turn out. Many will vote for the first time as a novelty, just because it's something they've never done before. But many more are in very unstable situations - recent high school grads who are now college freshmen moving away for the first time, or who are trying to get out to jobs and apartments on their own.

I think political activism and voting behavior in this demographic arises from one of three things:

intrinsic interest in politics - some folks just like it. Class presidents, poli sci majors, and such.
opportunities for meaningful activism - being involved in campus or community activities that succeed lets people see that participation has rewards. It creates the personal bond between a voter and the political process.
perspective - lets face it, most folks under 25 don't have much perspective. They don't have much ability to see their own problems and experiences in the context of national politics or historical events. They also don't pay much income tax and don't realize just how important politics can be.* That comes with time, with reflection, and with personal change. People who have not participated in voting will gradually become more active as they age and as they realize what the stakes are.

Education, while important for #3, is not sufficient - there must be a degree of maturity and perspective that leads to the realization that politics matters. That realization can only be accelerated among young voters by direct personal impact from the effects of political decisions, coupled with "personal efficacy" - the sense that an individual's votes and actions can matter. In short, if young folks don't care about politics, it is difficult to make them care. You can browbeat them, shame them, or peer pressure them into voting. You can even make voting "cool". But you won't make them want to vote for voting's sake.

To get young 20-somethings with kids to the polls, we have to convince them that it's important - foster the realization that votes now are crucial for their health, their kids, their jobs, their future.

*I wonder: if the WSJ had its way and poor folks had to pay more in income taxes, as opposed to "invisible" payroll taxes, those poor folks might become a lot more politically active. But I'd guess their politics wouldn't change, just their interest level.

This post, and more, at the Silentweb.

by Silent E 2004-09-03 05:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: cant be bothered ?

Having left this age group a few months ago, I think that is an unfair caricature. In 2000 people under thirty made up 17% of the vote. That is pretty substantial, especially considering that the 18-29 age group was significantly smaller in total size than both he 30-44 group (33%) and the 45-59 group (28%). They voted at a lower rate than other ages groups, but not horribly lower. Further, unlike those groups, they can be swung. If you are having a difficult time talking to them, maybe you should talk to them differently. No one likes to be talked down to. The issues young people care about are not the same issues everyone else does, and it is hard for me to imagine someone young being moved by the notion that this is the most important election in decades. Why should they either believe or care about that?

by Chris Bowers 2004-09-02 07:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

First time voter?

Bring a picture ID or you won't be allowed to.

by JimR 2004-09-02 08:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: First time voter?

Rules vary from state to state for registrations. This isn't true for California, but you do have to register a month or two before hand.

by Geotpf 2004-09-03 10:56AM | 0 recs