"It is fair to say that 2010 was the year of older, rich people." That's the conclusion of a new research memo from Project Vote, "An Analysis of Who Voted (and Who Didn't Vote) in the 2010 Election," by Dr. Lorraine Minnite. It finds that wealthier voters and Americans over the age of 65 surged to the polls in 2010, and increased their support for the Republican party, while young voters and minority voters (who strongly favor Democrats) dropped off at higher rates than in 2006.
Two years ago, African-Americans, lower-income Americans, and young Americans all participated in the 2008 presidential election in decisive numbers, making it the most diverse electorate in history. In 2010, however, these historically underrepresented groups were underrepresented again, as they (in common with most Americans) largely stayed home. Non-voters were the majority in 2010, a fact that "throws cold water on any victor's claims for a mandate."
This new memo analyzes exit poll and preliminary voting data to give the first comprehensive picture of the 2010 electorate. While this election largely followed patterns typical of midterms, Dr. Minnite found a few distinct features of the 2010 electorate that help explain the results. Absent a national race to galvanize new and minority voters, fewer voters turnout and the populations that do vote tend to be older. The racial composition of the population that voted in 2010 closely mirrored that of 2006: 80 percent of voters were white, 10 percent were black, eight percent Latino, and two percent Asian.
However, several distinct features of the 2010 voting population stand out, and contributed to the results on November 3:
1. Senior citizens turned out in force, with the number of ballots cast by voters over 65 increasing by 16 percent. While making up only 13 percent of the U.S. resident population, Americans in this age group constituted 21 percent of 2010 voters. This age group also significantly increased their support of Republican candidates, from 49 percent in 2006 to 59 percent in 2010.
2. The number of ballots cast by Americans from households making over $200,000 a year increased by 68 percent compared to 2006.
3. Relative to 2008, minority and youth voters dropped out of the voting population at higher rates than whites, undoing much of the gain in demographic parity achieved in 2008.
4. Women-already one of the most reliable voting groups-increased their share of the electorate, and significantly increased their support of the Republican Party.
5. Bucking the national trends, Latinos increased their share of the voting population in several states, saving at least three Senate seats for the Democrats.
"Perhaps the most significant point about voter turnout in 2010 is how many voters didn't vote," wrote Steven Thomma and William Douglas at McClatchy Newspapers on our study. "Some 38 percent of eligible voters didn't vote in 2008, and this November, another 33 percent didn't show up, which means that 'nonvoters were the majority in 2010.'"
As we know from our recent poll (among others), the electorate as a whole is shifting away from the views and values of these older, wealthier white conservatives who dominated the 2010 election: "As in most midterm elections, the people who voted in 2010 were not really representative of the American people," says Michael Slater, executive director of Project Vote. "This study raises serious questions about which constituencies candidates choose to court and engage as they look ahead to 2012, since the electorate, as a whole, is shifting away from the views and values of the older, wealthier white conservatives who dominated the 2010 election."
In 2004, youth turnout was wildly misreported - in the media and in the blogosphere. That reporting was summed up most aptly by this famous quip from the late Hunter S. Thompson:
"Yeah, we rocked the vote all right," quips Hunter S. Thompson, the gonzo journalist himself. "Those little bastards betrayed us again."
Of course Thompson, and the media reports, were wrong. The youth vote did turnout and was the only age demographic to vote for Kerry over Bush.
This year, expectations for the youth vote are higher than ever - perhaps unrealistically so - and the expectations game is already beginning to result in "youth don't vote" stories in local and regional media. For instance, in Florida, the Orlando Sentinel had this to say:
News 21, a project of the Knight Foundation out of UC Berkley has a new website - What's At Stake in 2008, that looks at policy and politics in America in 2008, and the current state of the American Dream. As part of that project, they've produced these incredible state-by-state maps of the US illustrating youth turnout in 3 major elections: 1972, when young voters first received the right to vote; 1996, the nadir of youth turnout; and 2004, the year that the trends we are seeing come to fruition today first started to gain traction.
Interestingly, it's on a map like this that the importance of election day registration becomes clear. While youth turnout was up across the board in 2004, it was strongest, or at least above average, in states that have some form of election day registration: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon (vote by mail), etc. Other factors, like competitive races, swing state status, and the size of local field ops also make a huge difference, but EDR can increase turnout by 10 - 12% according to studies by Demos.
Of course, the big question on everyone's mind is, what will this map look like in 7 days?
Democracy Corps released a new Youth for the Win poll analysis today. As in previous surveys, youth engagement continues to increase and is now higher than ever, particularly among young African Americans and non-college youth:
A 70 percent majority of young people agree they are more involved in this election than in previous elections, up from 54 percent two months ago. Among Democrats, this number jumped from 63 percent to 75 percent. As dramatic as the rise among African Americans (from 59 percent to 77 percent). Nearly a third of young people say they plan on getting involved, urging people to vote on Election Day. No doubt, this is overstated, but it is an important indicator of young people's commitment. It is also striking exactly who makes this commitment. The number is higher among community college students than four-year college students (33 percent and 27 percent, respectively). The number jumps to 41 percent among African Americans and 30 percent among Hispanic voters.
As the poll analysis goes on to state, it's no longer a question of whether or not young people will turnout in record numbers. They will. The question we all need to examine now is how far down the ballot will that engagement carry?
Faith in Public Life released a new study this week, The Young and the Faithful, measuring the political views of young voters of faith. As we've seen continuously throughout this cycle, these young, religious voters are much more favorable towards Obama than their elders, or previous young christians. They are more tolerant - particularly on social issues like abortion and gay marriage. And they are more likely to support multilateralist foreign policies and greater government involvement in solving the problems we face as a nation. The new FIPL report confirms these findings, and notes that it is primarily young Catholics and young voters who attend church just a few times per month who are driving these trends.
Cross-posted from Future Majority - a blog about progressive youth politics.
Last week we hit back at ABC and John Stossel pretty hard over their willful misrepresentations of the youth vote as "too dumb to vote." Today, over at the Rock the Vote blog, Kat Barr has an excellent piece posted about another youth vote meme that is taking hold in the media: young people register in droves, but then fail to vote.
Like so many other media narratives about the youth vote, this just isn't true. Here's what Kat has to say:
Cross-posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog Weekly Voting Rights News Update
By Erin Ferns
Partisan political operatives in Michigan are taking voter caging operations to depths that would surprise even the most cynical observers of American elections. If their plans are put into action, thousands of Michigan foreclosure victims may find that they will not only have lost their homes this year, but also their vote.
Yesterday I wrote about Super Delegates Under 36. Now I want to focus more concretely on those who are Super Delegates by virtue of their role as leaders within the Young Democrats of America and the College Democrats of America. Specifically, these are:
We're in a fairly unique situation right now. We are in the middle of the most closely contested primary contest in decades. Young voters are turning out in record numbers and their importance in this race is widely recognized in the media, the political class, and the general public. With the focus turning away from the popular voting in the states and towards the roll of Super Delegates in the nominating process, it's imperative that the Super Delegates representing the youth community cast their vote in such a way that it empowers and enfranchises the organizations they lead and the young voters they represent.
In the last few days, I've either had a conversation or exchanged emails with four of these five Super Delegates (the exception being David Hardt), asking them a few basic questions:
Have you declared support for a candidate?
What is your criteria for deciding your vote?
Would you consider a number of alternative criteria (described below)?
The delegates with whom I spoke were cagey about declaring their support, for a variety of reasons. Most significantly, it is the policy of both the College Democrats and the Young Democrats that the organization and the leadership stay neutral during a presidential primary. Many of them seemed uncomfortable with the position in which they found themselves, and expressed a belief and/or a desire to see the nomination wrap up in such a way that their vote at the convention would not be a deciding factor.
(The exception to this was Francisco Domenech, one of YDA's elected representatives to the DNC. Domenech declared his support for Hillary Clinton in December. Crystal Strait would not declare support for a candidate during our conversation, but the youth rumor mill has it that she will likely cast her ballot for Clinton, which is why I have marked her status as "uncertain" in my chart.)
At this point it is unrealistic to think that the nomination can be resolved in such a way that "their vote won't matter." Super Delegates are under enormous scrutiny right now, and news outlets are reporting that it is mathematically impossible for Clinton or Obama to carry the nomination without the support of super delegates. How they vote does matter and it will be scrutinized, no matter what the outcome. As such, the criteria by which they make that decision also matters a great deal.
In the short term, the delegates themselves - and the organizations they represent - will need to account for those votes. In the long term it matters because it will set a precedent. Whether they wish it or not, the criteria by which these five delegates cast their ballot will reflect (well or poorly) on their organization, and it will in part determine how future YDA and CDA super delegates cast their ballots. As such, these delegates need to think carefully about what will build the most power for their organization and their constituency, as well as what it means to be an elected representative of young voters on the DNC.
When I pressed the delegates for their potential (or determined) criteria, I was met with the following responses:
Domenech offered three criteria: what the candidate meant politically for the youth vote (resources expanded in campaigning, etc.), the candidate's issue positions, and what the candidate meant for Latinos in general and Puerto Rico in particular.
Another delegate stated that they would vote for the candidate most likely to pass policy proposals beneficial to students.
A third expressed a desire to use their position as a super delegate to leverage promises from the campaigns about young voter outreach and representation at the DNC and pick the canididate making the most/best promises
I do not believe that any of these criteria should be used in determining how YDA and CDA super delegates cast their ballot for three reasons: these concerns are either personal, subjective, or unenforceable.
Domenech's criteria place too much power in his personal preferences, and weights his personal history against his role as a YDA officer, by which he is afforded this opportunity to be a super delegate. The second criteria is entirely subjective as it relies on the personal judgment of the individual as to which proposals are better, and it offers no guarantees that said proposals will ever be enacted. The third criteria relies on an unrealistic view of the leverage that each super delegate actually wields - even in such a close race. No promises made prior to the convention, no matter how concrete, are enforceable. The candidate can only make good on promises if they become the nominee, and the Super Delegate gives up all their power once they cast a ballot. This is a one-way exchange that relies on good faith and the unrealistic assumption that promises made by campaigns in the heat of the nomination, to hundreds of distinct delegates no less, will all be honored at a later date. That's a gamble at best.
Instead, I offer the following criteria:
YDA and CDA super delegates should cast their ballots in such a way that empowers and enfranchises the constituents they represent.
YDA and CDA super delegates should cast their ballots in a way that concretely and verifiably builds power for young voters and their organizations.
What does that look like? I think there are two viable options, which I've ranked in the order in which I favor them:
National Youth Popular Vote: YDA and CDA delegates should ratify the results of the youth vote nationally. For YDA, that means voting the way that the majority of 18 - 35 year olds voted in the combined caucuses and primaries. For CDA, that means casting their ballot the way that the majority 18 - 24 year olds cast their ballot. Linking the Super Delegate vote to the youth vote nationally gives candidates - especially in a tight race - an extra incentive to go after young voters. If they know that a national win among the youth vote will results in dedicated commitment from super delegates, youth outreach will be more attractive to the campaign. This has the additional advantage of giving millions of young voters who cast their ballots a seat at the table in the otherwise "smoke-filled-room" world of the Super Delegates. As such, this meets both criteria that I laid out. It enfranchises and further empowers young voters in an otherwise insider process, and it concretely builds power for YDA and CDA by incentivizing youth outreach and youth-centric policy proposals by the campaigns. I believe this to be the most feasible (technically) and democratic of all the options, and encourage both CDA and YDA to set a precedent and informally adopt this rule.
Poll the YDA and CDA Membership: YDA and CDA could conduct polls of their membership (as MoveOn does) and informally require that the super delegates abide by the results. Instant run-off voting could be employed to ensure that one candidate receives a majority of votes. There are technical challenges to this - both organizations must ensure that the polls cannot be rigged, and the polling should require that a certain percent of the membership participate to ensure a fair sampling. Technically, this option meets both criteria. YDA and CDA leaders will enfranchise and empower their membership. As with the National Popular Youth Vote, it will incentivize outreach from the campaigns, though that outreach might focus on a smaller number of people (i.e. YDA and CDA members). And it will certainly build power for YDA and CDA by emphasizing the importance of their membership in the nomination process. That's not a bad thing, as it rewards participation in Democratic (Party) politics. However, I dislike this option somewhat as it could result in the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of other younger voters if YDA and CDA members choose a candidate not ratified by the majority of young voters.
I briefly toyed with the idea of a third option - that of letting each representative cast their ballot according to the popular youth vote results in their state, however that too presents a number of problems. For example, Lauren Wolfe, the President of CDA, is from Michigan, where only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot, and "uncommitted" won the youth vote. Lauren cannot vote for "uncommitted" at the convention. Does that mean Lauren is a free agent? Is she obliged to NOT vote for Clinton, who lost the popular youth vote? In the end, this method is least likely to build power for young voters nationally, and most likely to result in the disenfranchisement of young voters in general, or YDA and CDA members in particular, so I dropped it from my list as unviable.
What is most important here is that, while the media and public's attention is captured, YDA and CDA super delegates set a precedent and employ criteria that ratifies the will of young voters and/or their membership. Anything less will be a disaster for these organizations.
For years YDA and CDA were regarded as ineffectual social networking clubs - a way to pad resumes, network with party hacks, and start a career in politics: kids in suits playing politics. This was not an inaccurate analysis. That's changed since 2003. In the last four years - more so at YDA than at CDA - real field work and engagement of young voters became the mission and the passion of youth organizers. That change in mission and values - the greater focus on the worth and power of young voters - should be reflected in the way that YDA and CDA apportion their super delegates.
These positions are not rewards for the few who succeed in climbing the political rungs within these institutions. Rather, they are responsibilities that the leadership owes to those who have elevated them: the young voters about whom we've heard so much this election cycle. YDA and CDA super delegates should not thwart the will of those they represent. If they do - if they vote their personal preferences over the preferences of young voters or their membership - it will be hard to not to see it as the resurgence of the "kids in suits" mentality that hobbled the organizations for so long.
Drinking Liberally Shot of Truth
By Amanda Milstein
Last year my New York City voter registration was not processed, and I was concerned that I would be cast out of my social circle for my failure to vote. From blog posts listing their favorite candidates, excursions to canvass in swing states, and to lively in-person discussions about their political opinions, it was clear that my friends felt strongly about politics. My failure to vote in my first year out of college, accidental or not, made me an oddity, and it was clear that I would feel ridiculous if I let it happen again.
Other young people are influenced by the same social pressure that I felt: the blogs are buzzing with talk of the increased youth vote in New Hampshire and Iowa, and CIRCLE reports that "Young adults voted for the Democratic candidate over the Republican candidate in races for the House of Representatives (58% vs. 38%), the Senate (60% vs. 33%) and governor (55% vs. 34%)."
Why are young people voting for such large numbers for Democrats, and why has the number of youth voters increased so dramatically?
Last night while watching the debates, I was thinking about the "youth vote". I am glad they are getting up off of their collective asses and taking part but I wonder about why they do as they do.
I remember when I first started getting into politics, being aware and caring, I was about 11 years old. My first election was 1980. I knew that reagan would be bad for this county economically, but I would have verbal fights with people my age who thought he was the greatest because he talked of hope and change (Morning In America and all that). They bought into it without knowing the substance.
When gdub first ran it was about "compassionate conservatism" and "reaching across the aisle". I think we know how all that has turned out.
Now I am not comparing Obama exactly with these two neo-cons, what I am comparing is the message and how people ride that wave of a message. Especially the young people who seem to vote with emotion and passion but with less information and history to back up their feelings.
My point about MySpace (which I hate - one reasoning being that rupert murdoch owns it) and Obama is this: MySpace is huge with the younger people because it is the thing to do, it is what everyone else is doing, it is a trend, it is "cool". Is some of that same thinking, that group think of the younger people who MUST stay in fashion or be cast out socially, what is driving some of the youth vote for Obama?
This is not a slam against the youth vote, it is just a curious observation.
In the Sunday Washington Post, David Broder - the Dean of political journalism and purveyor of Beltway conventional wisdom - put pen to paper and produced this utterly useless column about young voters: Breaking Through to Voters. I wish that my tongue-in-cheek title for this post were a joke, but sadly, this seems to be the conclusion reached by Broder, who is widely regarded as on of the most influential and knowledgeable pundits in the Beltway.
Within the space of 700 words, Broder manages to repeat the false meme that young voters are apathetic, mention that young voters face barriers to participation (without really describing what those are or how to remove them), and claim that young voters "distrust government" without exploring what that distrust entails or how far it actually goes. The only redeeming factor of the column is Broder's (correct) conclusion: "Young Voters respond when treated seriously." It's ironic, because his own column fails to give young voters the credit and respect they deserve.
Cross-posted at Future Majority If we get a good discussion going, I will forward this post on to the Rock the Vote staff.
.The big news in the youth movement this week is that the old man of the Youth Vote - Rock the Vote - just merged with its studious younger sibling, Young Voter Strategies. Together, the two organizations will combine "the best components of YVS's research and outreach with Rock the Vote's long history of work to build political power for young adults." This is something that's been in the works for quite a while. Now that it has finally come to fruition, I'm left hoping for the best, but still asking a lot of questions.
Young Voter Strategies made a name for itself by rigorously investigating and documenting the most effective methods for reaching young voters and then promoting their findings to campaigns and the media. It's thanks in part to their work that so many Presidential campaigns now have full-time youth outreach staff that sit high up in the field department. It's due in part to their work that even down-ticket campaigns are devising youth outreach strategies and investing their resources in mobilizing young people. For the last few years, YVS has preached the value of peer to peer outreach and the importance of field work.
Yet Rock the Vote is primarily a media organization. In 1992 the organization accomplished an incredible amount by combining field work and a media campaign. 1992 was the first year the youth vote saw a significant increase since 1972. There were a lot of factors at work - an unusually competitive Presidential race (this was the year of Ross Perot) and strong work from the National Campaign for Student Voter Registration and the Student Environmental Action Coalition - but much of the success of that year can be attributed to Rock the Vote's combined media and field strategy. Since then, the field program has atrophied and media has become the primary focus of the organization. Indeed, this is the primary criticism I hear about the organization from ex-staff, youth organizers, and my peers who grew up with Rock the Vote as the only voice in the political debate that even tried to appeal to normal folks (read: non political junkies). Rather than create a culture of activism - or teach people to Live Liberally as we say around here - Rock the Vote devolved into a mechanism to sell young people a product: voting.
To be clear, this isn't at all to say that Rock the Vote hasn't had successes in recent times, or that it won't do good work in 2008. In 2004, 1.2 million people downloaded registration forms from their website. 75% of those people actually followed-through and registered, and 79% of those folks turned out at the polls. Those are good numbers. With their new online vote registration widget, they stand to make some substantial gains in online registration in 2008.
But what happens when you bring these two very different organizations together?
STATE BLOGS
