In a web-only piece on NYTimes.com yesterday Adam Nagourney, a well respected reporter, used incorrect, and misleading information discrediting the importance of the youth vote.
" The truth of the matter is that every four years – as sure as a sunset – stories appear about a surge of interest among younger voters in presidential politics, typically predicting a jump in turn-out that will benefit one campaign or another. It rarely turns out to be true: the percentage of voters under 30 in the total electorate was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2004-- 17 percent, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls. Polls taken by The Times and CBS News last month suggest that there is no difference in the level of support between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton among younger Democratic voters, though they view Mr. Obama slightly more favorably.
But could this finally be the year – and this the candidate – that produces the ever-expected burst of interest among younger voters? Polls aside, the kind of crowds Mr. Obama is drawing – and a walk through his campaign headquarters in Des Moines – certainly suggest that some young people have taken a strong interest in his candidacy."
There is no way to say this nicely - this is just flat wrong.
As Mike Connery over at Future Majority points out
"The 17% number, while correct, is highly misleading, and is the main reason that so many news outlets misreported youth turnout in 2004. While it is true that youth turnout as a share of the electorate remained the same, that figure has no bearing on the actual number of youth who turned out at the polls, or whether or not that number was higher or lower than in previous elections. In raw numbers, 4.3 million more young voters went to the polls in 2004 than in 2000. Turnout among 18-29 year olds rose from 36% to 47% - an increase of 11% points. In targeted battleground states, where dozens of nonprofits and party groups focused their efforts, turnout was up among young voters by 17%."
And according to the CIRCLE study of the 2006 election we saw another increase in total turnout at a time when most people don't come out because there is no presidential candidate at the top of the ticket. Surprisingly, young people turned out, they turned out more than they did during the last presidential election, and they elected a Democratic Majority in Congress and the Senate.
If you look at trends over at Young Voter Strategies or even their fact sheet on the 2004 and 2006 Elections you'll see evidence that young people did make quite the difference in growth and in actual elections.
Over at the Young Voter PAC Jane Flemming Kleeb makes a similar point but points out
"Nogourney is correct; in 2004 young voters did not increase their share of the electorate from 2000 to 2004 since it would have been pretty hard to physically create more young people. By 2015 though, young people will increase their share of the electorate to over 30%. That increase has more to do with the sheer size of the Millennial generation, which is huge – over 44 million strong – and less to do with their possible future turnout. As any political campaign knows, share of the electorate does not equate turnout."
She then goes on to correctly state the valid statistics.
What is most troubling is the extent to which campaigns pay attention to this type of spin on this issue. If more campaigns see this piece they incorrectly assume that young people don't matter - and without any recruitment young people will continue to not matter. If they aren't recruited, treated as though they are important only for their free labor and cash, and downplayed then you'll see a loss in their participation. This strategy is exactly what Republicans need to regain their lost seats.
Flemming goes on to point out the Obama gaff in response and the sad way in which they are pulled into this kind of thinking:
"Obama’s Campaign Manager David Plouffe’s comment about the youth vote falls right into a familiar trap. Obama’s campaign has been amazing around young voters by holding “Obama Camps” to train them how to register their peers and creating a space online for young people to share their support of the campaign. Instead of talking about all of the innovative ways young people are involved in their campaign and how young people have brought in energy and money into the campaign, Plouffe states the youth vote “is not central to our strategy. It is additive to our strategy.” Obama’s campaign is making a serious mistake here. You cannot motivate a sector of a population to their face, tell them they are the hope of the campaign and then turn around in the media and say young people are basically just icing on the cake.
Clinton’s campaign strategist Mark Penn answers the youth vote question right when he says, “there is a younger vote – and it is a significant segment. But the age structure of the Iowa caucus vote is that it is a heavy preponderance of the older voter.”
So many people talk about the lack of experience in the Obama campaign both as a candidate himself and in his staff - with HRC's view of the HUGE increase in turnout among youth voters in 1992 and massive drop off in 1994 and 1996 (seen here) its no wonder her campaign refuses to ignore the power of young people.
I urge everyone to see the original article and post your comments to set Nagourney straight on this issue.
__________________________
