Curtis Gans, a respected election expert operating out of American University, has a completely bizarre report out today on the lack of causation or correlation between primary turnout and turnout in the general election. I say bizarre because the report, which contains 4 pages of data, quickly devolves into 6 pages of "commentary" that only tangentially focuses on the relationship between primary and general election turnout. Instead, it reads more like a screed on what Gans thinks is wrong with our country and political system in 2008.
Gans is right when he says that there is no relationship between national primary turnout and national general election turnout. Of course there isn't. There are too many factors - such as how competitive the primary process is that year, whether one or both parties have competitive contests, how long those contests drag on, etc. - that can tip the balance for their to be any direct relationship.
But that's an overly broad question. The more interesting question to ask would have been "is there a direct correlation between primary and GE turnout for specific demographics?" For instance, if young voters turnout in record numbers in a Democratic primary, do we then see record numbers of Democratic youth turning out in the General Election? Or, if evangelical christians vote in record numbers in a Republican primary, do they also vote in record numbers in the General Election? And do those trends repeat throughout history? That would be useful information, and might give us a better idea what to expect in November, but Gans isn't asking those questions.
More important to me at the moment, though, is Gans' attempts to "debunk" the idea that there is a civically engaged demographic called the "Millennial Generation." To the extent that Gans is respected and is often quoted in the media, this deserves a response.
There Is No Millennial Generation: The large-scale involvement of college resident and educated youth is one of the most heartening aspects of this year’s nominating process. But the conclusions some have drawn from that participation—that we have a new politically engaged generation—is simply not supported by the facts.
Those involved this year are a fraction of the youth population and were brought in by the uniqueness of Obama’s candidacy—precisely because he seemed to offer something different than the politics they had been eschewing. They would not have stayed in—at least in anywhere near the numbers which have participated in the primaries—had Obama not won the nomination. They won’t stay in if he’s not elected and their interest and engagement won’t be sustained if he does not live up to the promise of his candidacy once in office.
What Gans ignores here is the fact that increased in youth turnout did not start with Obama, nor are they totally attributable to his candidacy. The youth vote increased significantly in 2004, and again in 2006 (pdfs). In neither case was Barack Obama on the ballot, nor did he have an active campaign operating that might boost turnout. This is not to say that Obama himself, and his candidacy, are not attracting new voters in greater numbers than we might have otherwise seen. But recent trends all suggest that youth participation in the 2008 election would have increased even without Obama's candidacy.
Gans' argument also neglects the fact that increased youth turnout is not a spontaneous event, but rather the result of hard work put out by many thousands of activists engaging in electoral politics, or the "electoral specialists" as the National Conference on Citizenship's 2008 Civic Health Index (pdf) calls them. It is due to the countless hours in the field spent door knocking and peer to peer organizing that was responsible for vote increases among young people in 2004 and 2006, and it is Obama's adoption of those peer to peer tactics that has made his campaign similarly successful among youth not just in polls, but at the voting booth.
Gans, of course, disagrees. He thinks that 2004 and 2006 were a result of anti-Bush sentiment. In the words of the great Jeffrey Lebowski: "That's just like, your opinion, man." Gans has no data to back up that claim, only his gut. But there is plenty of data to show that young voter outreach programs were of great effect at increasing turnout in 2004 and 2006. What's more, with the notable exception of Pennsylvania, every swing state targeted heavily by youth vote organizers in 2004 overperformed the national turnout average for young voters (pdf), climbing as high as 71% in Minnesota and 65% in Wisconsin. How does Gans explain that? Was anti-Bush sentiment greater in these swing states than in other states? Or did the targeted outreach actually have an impact?
Gans does try to answer that question:
The involvement of middle-class educated youth this year is not an isolated phenomenon. There is a reservoir of idealism, hope and a willingness to engage that has been part of every generation. In my lifetime, some of this group were madly for Adlai, others were engaged by the youth and energy of John F. Kennedy, still others formed the foot soldiers of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements and came clean for Gene (McCarthy) in New Hampshire’s primary campaign. They also were, for about eight months, enticed by the policy wonkishness on issues they cared about of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, were taken for about a month or two by the 2000 candidacy of John McCain and the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean and came out in force in the battleground states against President Bush through the proxy of working for Sen. John Kerry.
So if I read that last bit right, young people aren't involved except when they are, but then it's only because their motives are in the wrong place? That's just rampant speculation and Gans has no data with which to backup his claims
I also disagree with Gans' implication that the kind of engagement we're seeing now is the same as it ever was among "middle class educated youth." While political participation is still not where it should be, young people today are more engaged in many aspects of civic and community life than Gen X and Boomers. As the NCOC Civic Health Index points out, that involvement just takes different forms in response to radically different times. From the NCOC report:
The Millennials so far appear to be considerably more civically engaged than their immediate predecessors, “Generation X.” The voting turnout of young adults (ages 18-29) almost doubled in the 2008 primaries and caucuses compared to the most recent comparable year (2000). There were also substantial youth turnout increases in 2004 and 2006. Youth volunteering rates are higher in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s.
Compared to the Baby Boomers when they were young adults, Millennials are somewhat more likely to volunteer. They are less likely to vote and to participate in face-to-face civil society, as reflected by questions about attending meetings, belonging to groups, and attending religious services. Declines in face-to-face engagement occurred before the widespread use of the Internet; but clearly, today’s youth have new opportunities for online interaction. Overall, if we compare Millennials to previous generations when they were young, the Millennials appear more engaged than Generation X and engaged in different ways from the Boomers.
The NCOC report concedes that Millennials are not as directly involved in politics as they could/should be, and not as engaged in politics as Boomers were when they were young, but the trends are all favorable in this respect, and the report points to the internet as a growing tool through which to bridge the participation gap between "middle class, college educated kids" and non-college, lower income youth.
Ultimately, Gans comes off as nothing more than a crank, pining for the good old days. Is there any other way to read something like this?
The difference between the idealistic activism of the 1950s and 1960s and the activism of the 1980s and later is that the earlier generations were politically involved and interested and stayed in political activity even when their causes did not meet with success or their leaders showed feet of clay. They did so because there was a totally different ethos in America then. Schools were dominated by the ideas of John Dewey who made educated citizens a major educational aim. Parents discussed politics in the home. The media was more concentrated and more purposive. There was much less cynicism. The institutions underlying democracy were strong and well-aligned. People could and did work together across partisan and ideological lines. Great things were accomplished, people felt good about politics and government and wanted to be a part of that enterprise and believed their participation mattered.
Those who were briefly active in the 1980s and later did not stay involved. They didn’t because there is and has been for some time a totally different ethos. Participation in institutions has declined sharply. Media are fragmented and cynical. Politics tends to be a bad word, with most of the young having a dim view of the enterprise. Government is hamstrung by ideological polarization fed by political parties that are misaligned. Schools no longer train for citizenship (although some promote service which is not the same thing and does not have a carry-over effect to politics). Community has been eroded. Negativity in large volume dominates the conduct of politics. Civility is all too often absent. There is simply no grounding for a new engaged generation to emerge.
Yes, Generation X withdrew from politics and community, becoming a highly individualized generation for most of the 80s and 90s. Yes, our political and media system is in sorry shape. But study after study (Generation We, Millennial Makeover, Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation, Harvard IOP Surveys) all show Millennials to be an optimistic, not cynical, generation. They show Millennials to be believers in community action and their own ability create change. The show Millennials to be believers in the responsibility and potential of government to do good in this country, even if they have little faith in the current actors occupying positions of power. In short, they portray Millennials as a generation with the self confidence, desire and new technologies to reshape the very broken systems Gans identifies.
Against all that, Gans throws out a statistics-free rant about the "good old days" that has but one message: "You kids get off my lawn."
