Midterms

Well, here we go again.

The New York Times published a story today out of Colorado looking at whether or not young voters could be turning away from the Democratic ranks -- two years after serving as one of the bedrock groups in Obama's voting coalition. The story seems to be fairly balanced in its views, as there are some younger voters proclaiming their continued allegiance to the President and the Democratic Party, but there are also young voters souring on the Democratic leadership.

One young voter was particularly descriptive in explaining her conflicted views.

Kristin Johnson, 23, like many other students interviewed here in recent days, said that a vote for Democrats in 2008, however passionate it was, did not a Democrat make. But she bristles just as much at the idea of being called a Republican.

“It’s like picking a team when you really don’t want to root for either team,” said Ms. Johnson, a communication studies major, who said she was undecided about parties and politics going into the general election campaign.

If Democrats are letting voters like Ms. Johnson get away from them across the country, the ramifications of this blunder will be felt for a long, long time. But that's another topic for another day.

I wanted to focus on another passage from the article, one that reflects exactly what we have been facing throughout the last few special elections and what we will be fighting back through November and beyond.

How and whether millions of college students vote will help determine if Republicans win enough seats to retake the House or Senate, overturning the balance of power on Capitol Hill, and with it, Mr. Obama’s agenda. If students tune out and stay home it will also carry a profound message for American society about a generation that seemed so ready, so recently, to grab national politics by the lapels and shake.

While Kirk Johnson, the writer of this piece, does not go into specifics as far as what he means by a "profound message," I think the odds are good that these few lines illuminate the common misunderstanding that Johnson and other journalists run with when writing these stories. They go with the surface level content, mindlessly reporting that youth did not show up at the polls and, thus, are not interested in voting. Apparently, we're just not prepared.

But what about the other possibility: perhaps youth, suckered into this idea that politicians - maybe just once - might care about our issues, might be willing to talk big, think big, dream big, and for once exercise some pragmatic idealism, are let down. After being counted on to move this Democratic administration and congressional leadership into power, perhaps we are pissed off and making a political statement by refusing to be taken for granted.

That's where this article falls short. There are other possibilities for why youth might not be voting. Not because we are apathetic, or turned off to politics. It's because politicians gave us their word, we gave them our vote, and aside from a watered down health care bill, a stimulus that was too small, and maybe a few other bills, the work hasn't been done, and the to-do list is getting longer. Furthermore, we are left hanging in the breeze, waiting for an honest explanation... still.. waiting.. for that honest explanation.

So don't get us wrong: we're still ready to shake some lapels. But in order to be most effective, we need candidates who are uncompromising in their tenacity on confronting big issues, but flexible in crafting solutions to our problems. And we need them to engage us.

Thomas Goldstein and Thomas Bates, Executive Director of the Washington Bus and Vice President for Civic Engagement at Rock the Vote respectively, penned an op-ed published in today's Seattle Times. Goldstein and Bates took aim at the idea that youth's "low" turnout in midterm elections relative to older age groups ultimately means a smaller impact on the results.

It isn't exactly news that young people tend to vote at lower rates than older voters. The more interesting story is that even if young people turn out at lower rates, they can dramatically affect the election landscape and outcomes. That happened most visibly in the 2008 presidential election, but also in certain nonpresidential elections closer to home.

The approval of Referendum 71, the election of a young mayor in Tacoma, and two victorious young City Council candidates in Spokane are all evidence of the efficacy of targeting young voters. Moreover, the highest turnout in the state in 2009 was in the 43rd Legislative District, which has the greatest concentration of young voters.

Even with mounting evidence, too many campaigns write off young voters, and this tired habit has made the prophecy of low turnout a self-fulfilling one. It almost reads as a new definition of madness: Time and time again, campaigns don't invest time and resources into young people, and then are surprised when they don't mail in their ballots.

[...]

Luckily, we're doing something about it. Forward-looking organizations and campaigns have tested methods to engage young people and have committed resources to make them reliable voters. And we're seeing results: For the past three major election cycles — yes, even pre-Obama — the turnout of young people has steadily increased.

We know what works: Make sure young people are registered to vote, give them relevant information in an engaging way, and run campaigns that connect with their values.

The point both are making is that, blessed with size, the effect of even a subtle increase in the Millennial voting rate can be worth a few points in various midterm elections -- enough to tip those races in different directions.

As we move forward into the meat of the 21st Century, these younger people, increasingly becoming adults, are going to need to be pursued in a different way than past voters. This calls for aggressive engagement, complete with the "relevant information" Goldstein and Gates mention above, as well as managing campaigns that reflect youth's values.

In what is some bad news for the Democratic candidates in November's midterm elections, young people simply aren't that excited to vote.

According to Gallup daily tracking poll data from March 1 - March 7, 18-29 year olds were the age group with the highest lack of enthusiasm toward voting, with 44 percent of respondents noting that they were "not enthusiastic" about voting in 2010.

One potential problem for Democrats is the lower enthusiasm about voting among young Americans. Twenty percent of registered voters aged 18 to 29 say they are very enthusiastic about voting this November. That compares with 31% to 39% of older age groups who are very enthusiastic.

Younger Americans are decidedly more Democratic than the national average. Thus, their apparent lack of motivation to vote -- if it continues until Election Day -- could deprive Democrats of the full benefit they could in theory derive if all 18- to 29-year-olds were to vote.

Democrats need to knock this number down quickly if they want to have anything resembling success this November. One way of doing that would be to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation. Young people want to see their politics made up of officeholders who are strong, problem-solving leaders, instead of weak, timid politicians.

While David Plouffe and Barack Obama drew praise with his outside-the-box approach in the 2008 election, including the amazing mobilization of thousands of new young voters, 2010 will be a different story for Democrats across the country unless something significantly changes. While it is only March, this is still very disappointing.

UPDATE: From Political Wire:

A new Harvard Institute of Politics poll of 18 to 29 year-olds finds young Republicans are showing more enthusiasm than young Democrats for participating in the upcoming midterm elections with 41% of Republicans planning on voting, compared to 35% of Democrats and 13% of Independents.

This week Chris Bowers over at Open Left predicts that the voters upon which Barack Obama depended in 2008, a large bloc being young voters, will fail to turn out this November. Bowers grounds his argument in what he calls "long-term civic trends" that show "drop-off voters" participating in presidential elections and failing to go to the polls just two years later. Bowers contends that the importance of young voters to Obama's coalition will exacerbate this situation come Election Day, as youth consistently form a smaller share of the vote in midterm elections compared to presidential elections (for information on "share" versus "turnout," please read the first bullet point here). Thus, Bowers calls for a strategy of persuasion as opposed to mobilization.

I disagree with Bowers. In covering youth political participation, one quickly identifies the chicken-egg nature of the topic. Politicians and parties believe youth cannot and will not be politically engaged, so many of the ads, phone calls, and messages are tailored to older voters, alienating the youth demographic. When youth do not turn out after politicians largely ignore them, the media, pundits, parties, and candidates express disappointment in young voters for failing to engage. Thus, youth naturally view electoral politics with cynicism.

In unquestionably consuming the line that youth won't turn out without unearthing why this might be, we perpetuate the cycle. In a tough political environment thus far, with 435 House races this November and over 30 Senate campaigns, it's going to be easy this cycle for timid and weak Democratic incumbents and their consultants to stick their fingers in their mouths, hold them out in front of them, and avoid making tough decisions. And with the GOP disgusting young voters, Republicans have little incentive to target youth. Accepting this as inevitability is what gets us to this situation in the first place, because it doesn't shine the light on the ineffectiveness of this stale strategy. The result is an electorate that's older, more moralistic, and polarized. Boomer-like ideological strength is at the heart of midterms, not Millennial problem solving. Thus, I heartily disagree with Bowers' resigned argument because it reflects the hegemony that silences youth and leads to more of the same in our political dialogue, which we can no longer afford.

Perhaps if candidates were to truly engage youth in medium (use up-to-date technological communication) and message (a strong, progressive discussion of the economy, higher education, climate crisis, and national service framed in a problem-solving approach) and possess a strong record of consistent conviction, they might respond. Furthermore, youth suffer from a lack of access, not apathy. When young people are registered to vote, they turn out. For example, according to the US Census, 81.6% of all registered young voters actually cast a ballot in 2004. That is on par with other portions of electorate.

It's not going to be easy. It's harder to register/inspire a younger group of people to vote when they are collectively facing over 500 decisions without a headlining candidate/campaign at the top. But it won't be as hard if we're willing to challenge our candidates' conventional campaign strategies.

Bowers is right on one thing -- young voters do form the heart of Obama's base. Unlike Bowers, though, I argue that 2010 is so important, our issues are so pressing, and our demographic is so critical to Democratic success that there's no choice but to view this as a mobilization struggle. Political interest is at an all-time high among youth; to capitalize, we must recalibrate our campaigns to attract the support of young people.

I want to follow up Sarah's post with another to underscore something she wrote:

The moral of the story continues to be that young voters will turn out if they are graced with the same outreach as older voters. That is, if you want them to turn out. Progressive candidates can win if they work to engage young voters in their district that connect to progressive issues. As a partisan hack my advice to the other side is to be more conservative and embrace the teabaggers.

We know that if young people are contacted by another peer and asked to register to vote, they're more likely to vote. We know that young voters are courted through peer-to-peer outreach methods by some campaigns, and more likely than not, those campaigns demonstrate success in getting youth to the polls. We just saw a GOP candidate successfully do this in Virginia.

What really concerns me is that Sarah even had to offer her "advice" to Republicans (the Democrat in me echoes it) at the end of her post. Laugh all you want, but if the Republicans continue to operate from a McConnell mode, and the Democrats continue to field campaigns like Deeds and Corzine, with no peer-to-peer operation or youth issues, it's not going to be pretty.

Yes, the mid-terms are still a little over a year away, and these gubernatorial elections pale in comparison to the scale of the mid-terms, but they definitely should be viewed as a lesson. If we start to assume young people are blue when running campaigns, we'll be left seeing red.

Originally posted on MyDD earlier today

Youth turnout is trending up.  At this point, I hope that is a given.  When we talk about those turnout numbers, frequently they are discussed in the context of national turnout or Presidential elections.  But what does it mean at the local level?  How does this play out in a Senate or House race? What about gubernatorial bids and state legislative races?  

In last year's midterms, 58 federal elections, and 80 state level races were decided by easily surmountable or razor thing margins.  Breaking those numbers down, five U.S. Senate and three gubernatorial races were decided by less than 50,000 votes; 35 House races by less than 10,000 votes and 18 by less than 5,000 votes; and 77 state legislative races were decided by fewer than 100 votes.

In almost all of these races, the margin of victory was less than the turnout increase among young voters in that state.  

A combination of three factors drove the increase in turnout: highly competitive races, in which the potential value of a single vote is recognized by formerly disenchanted young voters; non-partisan voter registration efforts aimed at youth; and partisan outreach to young voters by campaigns.  Two of these factors are outside the control of a candidate and his/her campaign.  But the third is something we can study and replicate to help drive progressive youth turnout and increase our majorities in 2008.

A new report by Young Voter Strategies provides a road map to do just that.  The report features a series of case studies on how campaigns- Democrats AND Republicans - reached out to young voters to create victory in '06.  Below the jump I've pulled out and summarized some of the more interesting case studies, and noted some best practices that have emerged - some of which are smack on the head obvious (but still aren't utilized by most campaigns), and others which go against conventional wisdom.  This is required reading for all Democratic campaign staffers.  

Today, we all head to the polls to choose our representatives and hopefully change the direction of our country. One voting block that is sure to play an important - and expanding - role in today's election is young voters.

In 2004, the media completely botched the story about young voter turnout. An article in the AP mistakenly reported young voters share of the electorate instead of the hard turnout numbers. In 2004, youth turnout as a share of the electorate only rose 1-2% points due to an overall turnout increase of 4% among the voting population. Young Voter strategies has more on the difference between share and turnout here. (pdf)

The result of this error was a complete dismissal of youth turnout for months, and a reinforcement in the minds of many politicians and the media that youth remained apathetic. We know that's not true.

The real story, we now know, was that youth turnout increased by 11% over 2000 turnout levels, and that young voters chose Kerry over Bush by a 10 point margin. This was the largest increase since 18 year olds were granted the vote in 1972.(pdf)

To make sure that this little piece of electoral history doesn't repeat itself, I'd like to establish some baseline info about youth turnout - what to look for, and what we can expect today:

CIRCLE issued a press release yesterday announcing the results of its analysis of youth voting trends in midterm election. The results look good for Democrats.

Turnout will probably be up - though not as high as 2004:

The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) compiled data on the midterm cycles nationwide -- and by state -- since 1974 to get a sense of what the nation might expect this fall. In the most recent midterm election in 2002, 22 percent of young adults voted. However, the best comparison to this year's election may be the 1994 midterm, because it was the last midterm to follow a similar surge in youth voting. In 1994, 26 percent of 18- to 29-year olds voted. State and national fact sheets can be found at http://www.civicyouth.org.

"The increased mobilization efforts to get young people to the polls in 2004 likely contributed to the spike in young voters. The level of mobilization will be lower this year, but probably at least as high as it was in 2002. All political parties should work to mobilize this large group of potential voters," said Peter Levine, director of CIRCLE. "We did see additional increases in turnout in student-dense precincts in 2005 local and state elections. And we now know from experimental studies that mobilization in one election still motivates people in the next election."

And who will these voters most likely cast their ballots for? (emphasis mine)

As for partisanship among young Americans, in a poll CIRCLE conducted this summer, young people were more likely than adults 30 and older to identify as strictly independents (26 percent vs. 18 percent) and less likely to identify as Republicans (28 percent vs. 35 percent). Compared to 2002, somewhat more young adults are identifying as independents (up 2 points) though slightly fewer identify as Democrats (down 1 point).

Our generation seems to be fleeing the parties altogether in favor of independent status, but we are clearly a demographic in which progressives hold an advantage, and campaigns should be doing their damndest to get to speak to us and get us to the polls. CIRCLE has some solid advice on how to do that - much of which is echoed frequently here on this site. Catch those after the jump.

And check out CIRCLE's excellent research/stats area on young voter turnout and political attitudes.