"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."
(Project Vote Asks, "Who exactly isn't being listened to?" - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
"Can you hear me?" That's the recurring refrain in a radio promo for this weekend's "Virginia Tea Party Patriots Convention," which-with an estimated crowd of 3,000-purports to be one of the largest rallies yet of so-called "Tea Party" sympathizers. The 60-second radio spot by keynote speaker Lou Dobbs features allegedly outraged Americans repeating that line, interspersed with un-attributed stats about how Americans supposedly oppose stimulus spending, health care, and other government spending policies "Maybe Washington can't hear us," Dobbs intones dramatically, "because they're just not listening."
Not listening to whom? For two years media obsession with the Tea Party has drowned out nearly every other voice in the public debate, a self-perpetuating feeding frenzy that has raised the volume on this population’s views to a disproportionately deafening roar. Yet, as is shown all too clearly in Project Vote’s recent poll report What Happened to Hope and Change? A Poll of 2008 Voters, these shouts for attention are coming from a segment of the population that is overwhelmingly white, wealthy, and older—and one that is out of touch with the needs and views of most Americans.
One thing that Tea Party sympathizers say is confirmed by Project Vote’s poll: they are indeed almost universally angry. Yet, based on their responses to Project Vote’s survey, they seem to have precious little to be angry about. Three fourths of them report that their personal financial situation is fairly good or very good. Eight out of ten are employed or retired; they are overwhelmingly married; they went to college; and they make more money. Contrary to claims that the Tea Party represents a “wide swath of Americans,” nine out of ten Tea Party sympathizers are White.
Older, wealthier, White conservatives: this is hardly a population overlooked or ignored, either by the media or by Washington.
Can you hear me? This question is better asked by the 21 percent of young voters, the 37 percent of Black voters, and the 39 percent of low-income voters who reported to Project Vote that they did not have enough money to buy food for their families at some point during the past year. (Only 6 percent of Tea Partiers said the same.)
It is a question better asked by the strong majorities of black voters, young voters, and low-income voters who support stimulus spending, government programs to create jobs, and who say they agree with the statement that “government should work to provide for the needs of all citizens.”
It is a question better asked by the majorities of all American voters who support raising taxes on capital gains, ending combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and raising the minimum wage to ensure that no family of three with a full-time worker has to live below the poverty line.
Belying the exaggerated claims of Tea Party activists, Project Vote’s poll shows that most Americans—and particularly the black, low-income, and youth voters who increased their participation so decisively in 2008—share a common expectation that government should provide for the needs of all Americans rather than limit its activities to national security and police protection. This value translates into support for increased spending on infrastructure and public education and maintaining or increasing spending on income security programs such as Food Stamps.
In a press release about the Project Vote poll, Color of Change co-founder and executive director James Rucker said, “What Project Vote’s poll shows is that the views on government held by progressives represent the majority. We shouldn’t let Tea Party activists convince us that we, and not they, are the minority.”
Yet as the Tea Party minority turns up the volume on its microphones again this weekend in Richmond, Virginia, media attention will no doubt once again focus on their anti-government message. Meanwhile, the voices of the other 72 percent of American voters are calling for a different vision of government—one that does more, not less, to support and protect struggling Americans.
The nation is experiencing one of the greatest mobilization efforts ever seen for a midterm election. And young voters, as a result of their rising turnout rates in recent cycles, are increasingly becoming the target of those efforts. With voter registration deadlines fast approaching in many states, get-out-the-vote groups should take an additional look at the highly mobile college population and take advantage of a little-known federal voter registration law that helps them register to vote.
Tucked away in the Higher Education Act is a requirement that colleges and universities make an effort to help students register to vote by distributing voter registration applications by email or by paper (if distributed by email, the email must be solely dedicated to voter registration). Schools that do not do so risk losing millions in federal funding.
An estimated six to eight million part-and full-time students in 2010 are unregistered, according to a recent op-ed by Douglas Hess and Steven Rosenfeld: "Compliance with the HEA could easily facilitate the registration of hundreds of thousand of new, young voters and update the registrations of an equal number."
Registration deadlines start kicking in soon: the first few states stop accepting new registrations next Monday, October 4. So, it is imperative that schools take this opportunity to follow the law by reminding their students that time is running out if they want to register to vote in another historic election this November.
Schools and voter registration groups should:
Send an email to all students with voter registration forms as a link or a PDF attachment, and provide them with the deadline;
Remind students to print and mail their voter registration forms (unless they live in states that provide a completely online voter registration service);
Continue to supplement voter registration emails with in-class registration or voter registration tables.
Click here to see a list of voter registration deadlines. If your state’s deadline is several weeks away, consider sending one email now and another the week before the deadline. (Schools in six states are exempt from this law: Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.)
(It's not just the M$M, we here in the blogosphere have gotten a pretty distorted view of the electorate this cycle as well. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Project Vote’s new poll, which reveals the “rising electorate” from 2008 has starkly different views about the role of government than Tea Partiers, has inspired some discussion on the mood of voters before the election in November. “What Happened to Hope and Change,” we ask, and several bloggers, columnists, and reporters (sometimes with a combination of relief and frustration) attempt to answer.
"Lorraine C. Minnite, the author of the study, argues that the poll shows that the media is paying too much attention to the concerns of the mostly white and better-off Tea Party," reported Linda Scott at PBS News Hour.
The poll's finding that Tea Partiers only make up 29 percent of 2008 voters, compared to the 32 percent of black, young, and low-income voters, who turned out in droves in 2008 was a "refreshing corrective," wrote The Nation's Chris Hayes.
"We've all spent so much time dwelling on the slights and accusations of the Fox News crowd, there's been shockingly little attention paid to the views, frustrations and convictions of what we might call the forgotten electorate, otherwise known as Obama's base," he wrote.
(Project Vote does some of the best & most important work out there, and this is very important information. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
Today, Project Vote released What Happened to Hope and Change? A Poll of 2008 Voters, a new report summarizing the results of a telephone survey of 1,947 Americans who voted in 2008, analyzing their views on the role of the government, government spending, and the budget. This unique poll not only surveys the historic 2008 electorate, but also includes special samples of black, low-income, and youth voters, and compares these groups both to a national sample and to self-identified “Tea Party” sympathizers.
“We wanted to learn more about the views of the black, youth, and low-income voters who overwhelmingly participated in 2008 election,” said Lorraine C. Minnite, director of research for Project Vote. “These voters represent roughly a third of the electorate, they will play an increasingly important role in American politics, and they fundamentally believe in a government that does more, not less. Yet their voices are largely ignored, and their views are not being represented.”
Out of the many politicians in America's democracy, President Barack Obama is unique in several ways. For one, the books authored under his name are actually written, beginning to end, by himself. In Washington politicians author many books, but very rarely are the words their own; the tradition is to use a ghostwriter.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Obama did take some steps to promote his first book - Dreams From My Father. One such interview provides a revealing hint of his early philosophy:
As a journalist, isn't one supposed to report the facts, not what they think the facts mean?
The other day in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Salena Zito penned a piece headlined "Young Voters Increasingly Identify with Conservative Politics." Not surprisingly (especially considering the paper's conservative editorial page), that conclusion is flawed.
Engaging young citizens in the democratic process is an issue that lawmakers and voting rights advocates have long attempted to address. But with most youth voter engagement efforts primarily targeting college-attending youth (who make up less than half of the population of 18-24 year olds and are more likely to register and vote), the problem of underrepresented youth is likely to remain unsolved.
As voter education and access to voter registration seem to go hand-in-hand with greater voter participation rates, more lawmakers and advocates are siding with a simple solution for youth voter engagement: preregistration. However, as the state legislatures demonstrate this year, support for this reform could not happen fast enough.
Today is "Young and Future Generations Day" here at the International Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen, and I'm here with my wife Wahleah and our two-year-old daughter Tohaana. Along with thousands of other young people, we're doing everything in our power to convince world leaders to commit to a fair, ambitious, and legally binding international agreement based on a target of 350 parts per million (ppm), which is the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Less than 400 miles away in Oslo, Norway, President Obama is accepting the Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." If ever there was a time and place to live up to that honor, now, in Copenhagen is it.
Four former Nobel Peace Prize winners have endorsed a target of 350ppm. On December 12th, 2008, at the international climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Al Gore (2007 winner) said to a huge crowd: "Even a goal of 450 parts per million, which seems so difficult today, is inadequate. We need to toughen that goal to 350 parts per million."
Today, only three states have enacted laws that voting rights groups argue foster lifelong civic engagement among the nation's historically underrepresented group: Youth. These policies - implemented in Hawaii, Florida, and most recently, North Carolina - provide an opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds to preregister to vote. However, merely providing preregistration opportunities is not enough to instill democratic participation in new voters. Such policies could be more effective when accompanied with education on how to be enfranchised, Florida policymakers say, and they hope to make the state a flagship for improved, youth-oriented election reform in 2010.
This statement will come as no surprise to Open Left readers: People with power tend to use it for their own benefit. Of course, the explanations given for various actions are almost never: "We're doing because it's good for us and our friends." Instead, a variety of rationalizations are given which often seem to "make sense" if one doesn't ponder things for too long. How does this play out when considering policies affecting our youngest voting citizens, those aged 18, 19 and 20 years old?
Keep in mind that policy makers are, generally, old. The average U.S. Senator is 63. Representatives average a few years younger. Recent Presidents range from late 40s to about 70 with a mean in the late 50s.
These older (wiser?) men and women (a few) think it's just fine to send the youngest citizens to die in wars. In fact, 76.5 percent of U.S. casualties in Iraq have been soldiers younger than 30. The percentage for Afghanistan is 66.5. Rationalization: soldiers need to be in top physical condition, so the young must bear this burden.
But the greatest hypocrisy concerns 18-20 year olds. So far, 850 have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this decade; 748 in Iraq and 102 in Afghanistan. Another 600 just turned 21 before they died in those countries. And yet, we prohibit 18-20 year olds from drinking alcohol. Why is this?
It's because old people would prefer that young people don't drink. Young people are, obviously, too irresponsible to drink. Give them an assault weapon or a tank but not a beer. It's a simple power play: we'd prefer you not drink so we won't let you and we'd prefer you go and die in wars but not us.
This is the point in the argument where the call for changing the drinking age is supposed to come but I'm not going to do that. Doesn't really matter that much. Instead, I'll call for this: change the age for combat to 40-65. Educate the young and let them start careers and families. Send the older citizens to die in war.
Added benefit: war policies might begin to change.
The 2008 election was the most diverse in modern history, with increases in participation among young people, minorities, unmarried individuals, and other historically underrepresented groups, according to a comprehensive new report by the voting rights group Project Vote. Whether gains by these groups will hold steady in 2010, however, remains to be seen.
Last week, the Labor Department reported that youth unemployment stands at 18.2%, nearly twice the national average of 9.8%. The percentage of young people without a job is a staggering 53.4 percent, the highest figure since World War II. Looking deeper, the statistics for youth of color are terrible and telling.
According to the most recent data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 40.7% of black youth between 16-19 are unemployed, almost double the amount of whites teenagers (23%). For Latinos the same age, the rate is nearly 30%. Get a little older and the gap grows wider. Unemployment for black Americans aged 20-24 is 27.1%, over twice that faced by white youth (13.1%) in the same age range.
The glaring differences indicate that unemployment is not only decidedly raced, but also that the current economic condition is wholly unforgiving for young people of color. Only a massive, well-funded set of green jobs programs explicitly designed to close those racial gaps can create a truly vital, full-employment economy.
The California Legislature approved a bill last week to extend voter registration privileges to 17-year-old citizens. If signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bill would help put California youth on the road to a lifetime of democratic participation.
- The AFL-CIO lays out the what's what on the economic situation for 18-35 year olds. Main takeaways: more of them are unemployed, fewer of them can afford to build savings or get health coverage, they're deferring education or planning for a family because of the expense, and just over a third of them are living with their parents.
- In what's likely the best news coming out of Afghanistan of late, opium profits have declined, so fewer farmers are growing it.
- Obama urges the public to take steps to avoid catching the flu, particularly due to concerns about the new H1N1 swine flu. Seriously, wash your hands.
STATE BLOGS
