millennial generation

This is a guest post by Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, the authors of Millennial Makeover. --Mike

As admirers of Curtis Gans' research on voter turnout, it pained us to read his Baby Boomer-oriented screed attacking the Millennial Generation, even denying the existence of the Millennials, for not acting exactly like the Boomers did when they were young. Aging Boomers like Tom Friedman have made the same public mistake, demonstrating just how convinced many leading thinkers among the Boomer Generation are that the political style of young people today is not like their own youthful political behavior was and is, therefore, not appropriate or useful. While it would be easy to address this error by simply commenting admiringly on Mike Connery’s excellent blog dissecting Gans' diatribe, the egregious nature of Gans' comments warrants a more fulsome response.

Since Gans' research report was focused on, in his words, the increased, “almost record,” turnout in this year’s presidential primaries, it is particularly surprising that he chose this vehicle to announce his distaste for the Millennial Generation and its political style. Gans cites the work of William Damon as the source of his knowledge about this generation, which is strange given the large number of more well-documented studies of the Millennial Generation disproving Damon’s contention that the parents of Millennials are “creating a generation of young people who lack confidence and direction.” The evidence shows just the opposite. If anything, employers and teachers who interact daily with Millennials complain that they are almost too confident, to the point of sounding “cheeky.”

This generation's self-confidence and orientation toward the group and the broader society has important political implications. Recent polling data from USAToday/CNN demonstrate that Millennials are paying close attention to the 2008 election and have every intention of voting, at numbers rivaling those of older voters. Their survey of more than 900 young Americans, taken Sept. 18-28 found that:

• 75 % of Millennials are registered to vote
• 73% plan to vote
• 64% have given "quite a lot" of thought to the election

Even Gans concedes that Millennials may vote in large numbers in this election. But he says that they will do so only because of their fondness for Senator Barack Obama and not because of any long-term commitment to the political process. Millennials he says

“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.” He continues, “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.”

Gans makes this assertion in spite of having no data to support it.

There is no doubt that Millennials have responded very positively to Senator Obama and his candidacy and that the Obama campaign has strongly targeted this generation. Millennials supported Obama overwhelmingly in this year's Democratic primaries and virtually all current general election surveys indicate that Millennials favor him over John McCain by at least a 2:1 margin.

But the political attitudes and identifications of Millennials were clearly evident long before the Obama candidacy gained widespread visibility. A Pew Research Center survey conducted in March 2007 indicated that Millennials identified as Democrats over Republicans by nearly a 2:1 ratio (52% vs. 30%). And, a study conducted at about the same time by the Millennial Strategy Program of communication research and consultation firm Frank N. Magid Associates showed that Millennials were the first generation since at least the GI Generation to contain a greater number of self-perceived liberals than conservatives. All of this at least raises the possibility that the high level of Millennial political involvement is significantly based on the Democratic and liberal affinities of the generation and would be strong even without Obama's strong candidacy.

Gans makes it clear why he is sure that the political involvement of Millennials stems solely from their attachment to Barack Obama. He yearns for the “idealistic activism” of the 1950s and 1960s when, according to Gans, all of America shared a “different ethos” thanks to an educational system based “on John Dewey’s philosophy.” Since, in Gans' mind, the emerging Millennial Generation doesn’t share the liberal idealism of his own youth, it cannot possibly sustain its current level of political activity. If only it were so, Curtis.

In fact, the ideological ferment of the late 1960s, led by half of the Baby Boomer Generation’s counter-cultural rebellion against authority, and the reaction against this social turmoil by the other half of Boomer Generation, produced the political gridlock that caused the very cynicism in the older portions of the electorate that Gans decries. Even his own expert on the Millennial Generation, William Damon, concedes that Millennials “are working hard, doing well enough in school, and staying out of trouble.” Indeed, America is enjoying far lower levels of socially deviant behavior, such as teen age pregnancy and crime, since these indicators began to soar during the adolescent years the Baby Boomer Generation with its disdain for social rules and convention.

But Gans' own words demonstrate the flaw in his thinking. The 1950s that he writes about so nostalgically was actually an era dominated by the behavior and ethos of the GI Generation, another “civic” generational archetype, just like Millennials, not by his beloved Boomers. That generation put FDR in the White House, brought about the New Deal approach to progressive government, defeated fascism in WWII, and voted at rates greater than those of previous generations. Their Democratic loyalty lasted a lifetime: the last remaining members of the GI Generation and the first sliver of Millennials provided the only pluralities for John Kerry over George W. Bush among any of the generational cohorts voting in 2004.

The previous falloff in voting by young people described by Gans in his diatribe is completely explained by the generational attitudes and behaviors of Boomers and Gen-Xers as they moved into and out of young adulthood. One generation, Boomers, initially turned out to vote spurred by admirable idealism and then often left the political process when they discovered in Gans’ telling phrase, that “their leaders showed feet of clay.” The other, Generation X, never bothered to participate in large numbers having been discouraged by the political gridlock Boomers had created. Now that Millennials make up the entire population of voters 26 and under in this election, you can be assured that they will not only vote at rates comparable to older voters, just like their GI Generation great-grandparents did, but they will also continue to vote heavily and participate vigorously in the nation’s political process for the rest of their lives.

They will do so, because unlike Curtis Gans and his ilk, who never were able to translate their idealism into action, Millennials are intent on working together to create a better America than the one Boomers have left them as an inheritance. Their confidence, political activism, and unity will begin to initiate that change on Election Day this year thanks to a record turnout of young voters. The 1.7 million vote plurality given to John Kerry by young voters in 2004 will grow to between 8 and 10 million for Barack Obama when this involved and unified generation goes to the polls on November 4. Only Curtis Gans and out of touch Boomers will be surprised.

If you haven't yet seen Sarah Silverman's video project The Great Schlep, encouraging young people to go visit their grandparents in Florida to convince them to vote for Obama its worth the watch.

Now the Obama campaign has launched The Talk - a video showing young supporters how they can talk to their families and explain to them why they should vote for Obama.

The interesting thing about this video is that it plays on the relationship that Millennials have with their parents. I've written a little about this before, but the short version is that because Millennials have such close relationships with their parents that they are able to convince parents to buy certain products - specific jeans, iPhones, etc...

It stands to reason, that projects like The Great Schlep and videos like The Talk can actually help young people talk to their parents about why they need to vote for Obama.

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."

I came across a new website I hadn't seen before today. TwoVoters.com that encourages Obama supporters to send their videos around to friends and family as a means of spreading the message, talking about issues, and encouraging people to vote and register. The homepage opens to a video with a blue screen with text and music that sounds sincere but a little like an after school special.

They have a specific 18-29 year old tab on their home page of videos that takes you here to a welcoming video that addresses the youth vote.

Note: None of these videos you can embed on blogs or other websites and only a few are uploaded to YouTube. But you can upload the videos to your iPod so you can listen to them intensely while running on a tredmil at the gym.

The welcome isn't a bad video, and again, I'm more of a fan of people who do something rather than nothing when it comes to young voters. The video becomes a bit of Debbie Downer when it talks about the fact that only one in four young people voted in the last election and how sad that is. It doesn't mention that among all Americans really only 2 in 4 voted in the last election.

I much prefer positive communication about things like this - our numbers are up - but we can do more - kind of talk. It does reference registering to vote at Rock the Vote's website...

Either way, the videos they include are interesting and target specific groups including gamers, young Clinton supporters, and first time voters all who are remarkably more encouraging, hopeful, and positive than the first "welcoming" video.

Here is the Gamer Video

Its not a new idea to connect with gamers and encourage them to vote and register. Rock the Vote is launching their voter registration widget via XBox.

One video even goes so far to talk about the "senior citizen" who spent money to launch TwoVoters. I'm curious why the senor citizen decided to launch his own project rather than partner with so many existing ones. I would personally like to extend an invitation for him to fund our efforts here at FM...

It isn't a bad idea, but as I said to Mike earlier, there are so many of these kinds of websites now that I'm to the point that I forget if we've talked about them before....

According to a US News and World Report Wednesday young voters are one of the five voting groups to watch this election cycle.

"The only problem is that voting—or failing to vote—has always been the issue when it comes to youth. Since 1972, the first election in which 18-to-20-year-olds were eligible to vote, turnout among the under-30 crowd has steadily declined. In 2004, this trend seemed to turn around as the number of young voters increased. Get-out-the-vote organizations touted the fact that there were 4.2 million more voters under 30 than there were in 2000.

This year, there's perhaps even more hype surrounding the youth vote, and it could actually be warranted. Primary turnout among young people doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled in many states, compared with primaries in 2000 and 2004, according to Rock the Vote, a youth-oriented voter registration group that often partners with entertainment companies. In some communities, more young voters are registering, and anecdotal reports suggest more young people are volunteering for the campaigns as well. "You don't write off anyone," says Matt Segal, the executive director of SAVE, who encourages both of the candidates to ramp up their efforts to attract the youth vote. "Young voters are susceptible to the politicians who reach out to them." A swing state like Wisconsin might go to Obama if young people turn out in large numbers, as some suggest they will. If they're right, that really would be a change."

Other groups, not surprisingly include women, African Americans, Hispanics, and Evangelicals. All groups we like to talk about here on FM because all of them can also fall within the group of young people.

Women are always targets, call them soccer moms, security moms, or the recent revelation about single women, women are more than half of the population. A good friend said it best, "Piss off a man, he just ain't gonna vote for you. But you piss off a women not only is she not gonna vote for ya, her husband ain't, her kids ain't, her friends ain't, and everyone at the beauty shop sure as hell ain't. Women are powerful."

Ok, antidotes aside, African Americans are energized by issues and certainly by the fact that the first African American in the general election is on the ballot. AA's also more inclined to be younger.

Average age of Latinos is also younger and there is a pretty good broadband penetration rate for their demographic.

Evangelicals, tend to be older, of course, but young evangelicals are a voting bloc as we've seen that tend to be more interested in Obama's message. His campaign is ready to go after them, and while the whole of the demographic might not go for him, young evangelicals might.

So, of these 5 demographics I think its fair to say that 4 of the 5 include young people or include youth elements to them. And with young evangelicals I'd say that makes up 4.5 of the top 5 voting groups to watch that have a youth component to them.

See... I told you...

Since I last posted about Young Evangelicals becoming a new targeting group in battleground states FoxNews, who I'm certain reads FM on a regular basis, has picked up the story.

"Three swing states — Ohio, Missouri and Colorado — could tip the scales if religious youth show up the way they have in recent elections, said John Green, director of the Bliss Institute at University of Akron in Ohio.

"These 'battleground states’ are good reflections of the nation as a whole," Green told FOXNews.com. "The youth vote — both religious and non-religious — are likely to show the same patterns at the national level. If they [religious youth] can have an impact nationally, they will have an impact in the battleground states."

But a new poll by the Barna Group shows Obama leading McCain among all faith groups, except for evangelicals.

"Obama maintaining a substantial 43% to 34% lead among those who are likely to vote in November, with 5% selecting minor party candidates. That lead is a decline for Sen. Obama’s since early June, when he led his Republican rival 50% to 35% among likely voters. In the past two months, more voters have gravitated to third-party candidates (5%) and a higher proportion is now undecided (up from 15% to 21%)."

Interestingly enough, the LA Times reports this morning that the two candidates will chill on a stage together at Rick Warren's church in Orange County, CA

"But they will make a brief joint appearance, their first of the campaign, and Warren will interview each separately about the Constitution, poverty, AIDS, human rights and other subjects. . .

Many evangelicals believe that Warren's growing profile, and his willingness to welcome Obama to his pulpit, are evidence that he has emerged as the most pivotal figure in U.S. evangelicalism. . .

The forum with McCain and Obama, he said, is his latest attempt to introduce civility into public discourse, even if it irks some of his fellow evangelicals. Warren faced biting criticism in 2006 when Obama spoke at his church for a global AIDS summit. Last year Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) appeared at another AIDS conference at the church.

Warren has been called perhaps ‘America's most influential pastor,’ an evangelical megastar who leads the nation's fourth-largest church, reaches thousands of ministers through the Internet and crusades against poverty and AIDS. That globe-trotting work -- and his phenomenally successful book, ‘The Purpose Driven Life’ -- have propelled him into the vanguard of a movement that inspires young and socially conscious Christians."

All very interesting.... we're always bringing you the best info here at FM.

Last week during the Teen Choice Awards, DoSomething.Org honored a young community activist (under the age of 25) that aims to change the world. The winner received $100,000 to continue the community project started prior to the award. Finalists were posted on the Teen Choice website and fans voted for their favorite.

"One amazing young person is going to be recognized for their philanthropic efforts and impact on their community and get the rock star treatment they deserve at the show," said Bob Bain, Executive Producer of TEEN CHOICE 2008.

Do Something is a non-partisan non-profit that believes teenagers have the power to make a difference. They leverage communications technologies to enable teens to convert their ideas and energy into positive action. Their site says "We inspire, empower and celebrate a generation of doers."

"We think young people aren’t just tomorrow’s leaders; many young people are doing amazing things right now," said Nancy Lublin, CEO of Do Something, Inc.

And the Winner is.....

The winner this year winner was 19 year old Chad Bullock who has become the leading youth anti-tobacco activist…and he lives right in the middle of tobacco country. He works with politicians, companies, not for profits and other teens. One of his biggest successes was making the Durham Bulls Arena a smoke-free arena.

This is a unique way for an organization as well as a nationally televised event to convey to young people the impact they can have on the world around them. Young people already volunteer in their communities in encouraging numbers according to CIRCLE.

"44% believe that "people working together" can make a great deal of difference in solving local problems" and "45% believe they can make some difference" by volunteering in their community.

Honoring them and encouraging others to also get involved can continue the civic engagement we now see from the Millennial Generation.

As you saw in today's Quick Hits, CBS News has a great story up about McCain's lack of appeal to youth voters.

The article starts with observations of McCain's lack of comfort with technology, the thing that binds most Millennials together. But then it digs deeper into the dissonance that exists between McCain's stances on issues and the increasingly liberal views on the Millennial Generation.

Of course, when it comes to the youth vote in this election, any Republican nominee would begin the race at a significant disadvantage. Young people are clearly skewing to the left this election year, identifying more with the Democratic Party and embracing more liberal positions on so-called wedge issues by sizeable majorities. They've supported more lenient approaches to dealing with illegal immigrants, agreed that all citizens should have healthcare (even if the government has to provide it to those who can't afford it) and supported either same-sex marriage or civil unions for homosexual couples. Meanwhile, John McCain has wavered on immigration, his healthcare plan has been described as “total laissez-faire liberty” and he opposes both same-sex marriage and allowing gay couples to adopt.

I think that many Millennials would forgive John McCain for refining his positions on issues, as Millennials are pragmatic by nature and, in the end, want the best solution, not the purest ideology. But McCain's problem is that he has switched his positions on issues clumsily, such as immigration, Bush's tax cuts, and whether or not he's able to understand the U.S. economy. That would theoretically undermine his ability, in many Millennials' eyes, to offer any expertise at digging this country out of its rut.

So then McCain and the Republicans, understanding this, are forced into a decision. Do they hand the massive Millennial Generation over to the Democrats for good by discouraging their participation in this election, or do they start trying to build a relationship with young people with the remaining time left in order to strengthen it down the road? While they'd be wise to do the latter, it doesn't look good.

Between February 1 and July 31, Obama held thirty-two campaign events in college towns; McCain held three. The McCain campaign has yet to publicly announce an official youth outreach or youth vote campaign director. On the other hand, Obama has hired former Rock the Vote political director Hans Reimer. Not surprisingly, young Republicans have complained about the McCain campaign's poor efforts at the grassroots level and failure to make use of existing networks. "They definitely haven't reached out to the younger generation as strongly as I hoped they would," an organizer for the Young Republicans in South Carolina recently told a local newspaper. "It's a big mistake. You've got to create something that people want to be a part of. I'm just not getting that feeling this go-round." A young conservative political strategist named David All concurred, remarking to the Washington Post that "Republicans are sort of talking down to Gen-Nexters, not bringing them in."

One more thing I found to be interesting.

"Let me just start by saying that it would not be unheard of for a Republican candidate to win the youth vote," says Justin York, a grassroots youth organizer for McCain in Florida and an incoming junior at the University of Central Florida (UCF). York points out that Ronald Reagan, nearly McCain's age in 1984, won the majority of youth voters in his reelection bid and George H.W. Bush, at the age of 64, also captured the majority of youth voters four years later. And if York's organizing efforts in Florida pay off, perhaps McCain can repeat their successes.

Not so fast, Justin. The problem with York's first statement is that he's living in the 1980s. With today's youth, it would be unheard of for a Republican to win the youth vote. Ronald Reagan did enjoy success with Generation X. But Generation X is certainly different than the engaged, institutional, liberal Millennials. Justin also seems to be ignoring the 1990s. In 1992, the youth vote soared, but Bill Clinton was favored by the youth by a 44 percent to 34 percent (Bush) to 22 percent (Perot) margin. In 1996, Clinton again was favored, this time over Dole, by a 53 percent to 34 percent margin. Granted, many 1992 voters did not vote at all in 1996, but even so, the Republicans clearly did not enjoy any appreciation from that demographic.

McCain and the Republicans are treating (and hoping) the Millennials are like Generation X, a generation that, at worst for the Republicans, splits their vote somewhat evenly between the GOP and the Democrats, and is ambivalent about politics. But fortunately for the Democratic Party and our democracy, Millennials are different. They are engaged, they are liberal, and come November 4th, all signs point to them turning out and voting for Democrats in large numbers.

The Tucson Citizen publishes a piece partially misrepresenting activism among Millennials (another instance of someone believing the Internet to be mutually exclusive from interpersonal activism).

Wall Street Journal has an interesting story about Louisiana's efforts to undermine its own brain drain, starting with stringent ethics laws and a focus on developing and implementing innovative ideas.

The LA Times has a great essay by Neal Gabler examining Obama's credentials as a "rock star" versus a "movie star," pointing out that the challenge built into Obama's sudden ascent is getting people to not only dream, but embrace their dreams.

CBS has a piece describing the dilemma the McCain camp faces with youth voters: do they sacrifice future branding efforts with Millennials by discouraging turnout among the demographic this year? Or do they engage this demographic, though it's late, and attempt to build toward the future? The latter doesn't look promising:

Between February 1 and July 31, Obama held thirty-two campaign events in college towns; McCain held three. The McCain campaign has yet to publicly announce an official youth outreach or youth vote campaign director. On the other hand, Obama has hired former Rock the Vote political director Hans Reimer. Not surprisingly, young Republicans have complained about the McCain campaign's poor efforts at the grassroots level and failure to make use of existing networks. "They definitely haven't reached out to the younger generation as strongly as I hoped they would," an organizer for the Young Republicans in South Carolina recently told a local newspaper. "It's a big mistake. You've got to create something that people want to be a part of. I'm just not getting that feeling this go-round." A young conservative political strategist named David All concurred, remarking to the Washington Post that "Republicans are sort of talking down to Gen-Nexters, not bringing them in."

Finally, an Iowa television station has a story about the youngest Republican delegate at this year's convention -- seventeen year old Mike Knopf from Dubuque. He's a pretty smart kid:

"...We've got, don't get me wrong, all these old people and they do a great job and they have for 20,30,40 years but it you want to keep a party strong the key is you have to renew your people."