Youth Vote

Sarah Burris of Future Majority beats me to the punch in rebutting a blog post about a “Rising Tide of the GOP Youth,” as described by The Weekly Standard’s Rachel Hoff. Burris writes:

First, while Rachel is right to congratulate McDonnell for his campaign’s youth outreach, I hardly think it has anything to do with young voters having gone to the GOP…

This doesn’t mean young voters have gone GOP, it means that when you put forth the effort to get young voters, you speak to their issues, and you get out the vote you get a good result.

I wish I felt comfortable celebrating the fact that the 2009 elections meant young voters were turning toward the GOP, but unfortunately I just don’t buy it. Hoff suggests that “18-29 year olds in Virginia voted for Bob McDonnell over the Democrat 54% to 44%” could indicate a new trend, but as Burris notes, in Virginia there was not a “strong Democrat at the top of the ticket but…[there was] a strong Republican.” The unfortunate fact is that one Republican candidate’s successful effort in winning the youth vote does not indicate any sort of trend for future elections (for a counterargument, just look to New Jersey, where 57% of young voters voted for Corzine).

And while Hoff notes that “turnout among 18-29 year olds was 19% in New Jersey and only 17% in Virginia,” an “alarmingly low” turnout, it would be a huge mistake for the GOP to write off the youth vote based upon these numbers. As I have written previously, what’s at stake here is that the Republican Party stands to lose a generation of voters to the Democratic Party, potentially for life. Although Chairman Steele has taken some major efforts to reform the Republican National Committee, such as a huge push to modernize the RNC’s new media efforts, there still has not been a substantial push by Steele’s RNC to win over young voters.

In the end, both Burris and Hoff agree that making a real, authentic effort to earn the votes of young voters will result in young voter turnout. The Republican Party still has time left to turn the tide and prevent many of today’s young voters from becoming lifelong Democrats; however, the clock is ticking and time is running out. Major congratulations are due to the McDonnell campaign and their young voter outreach, but there is no time to pat ourselves on the back. Both the RNC and Republican candidates must follow Bob McDonnell’s lead and find unique new ways to reach out to and ultimately win over young voters.

 Conservatism Is Dead!  Long Live Conservatism!

             I am 23 years old.  I have been told that my ilk and I are the future.  To say the least that assertion frightens me.  Statistics, while reassuring, can only attenuate my anxiety slightly.  For while the sweep of history that Obama disciples say their savior rode into the White House on this past November might not have been as strong as they once thought – voters 18-29 resoundingly turned out to vote for Obama, yet overall the difference between the ostensibly crucial youth vote’s turnout in 2004 and 2008 was just 3% higher – the consensus among my peer’s is that centrist-liberalism – the form of liberalism Obama does not practice but I think successfully conveys – has become the accepted norm.  Why?  Because it feels pragmatic, tolerant, and, above all, it is imbued with a sense of competent realism.  Gone are the days of stereotypical bleeding heart liberal – at least that is the perception a lot of people my age have. 

            Conservatism as a movement has been vanquished in the eyes of many young politically minded people I speak with.   It has proven not only morally bankrupt –after starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, advocating torture, and impinging on civil liberties – but also intellectually bankrupt.  Where before a liberal friend of mine had begrudgingly admitted that conservatism’s redeeming quality for him was its emphasis on practical solutions, reliance on hard data, and fiscal frugality, today, in the wake of the financial and economic chaos that engulfs us it is no surprise that that reputation has been sullied. 

            I am not going to argue the merits of those qualms with modern conservatism.  My concern is the perception-reality gap; that is, how people, especially younger Americans, perceive conservatism, and, by extension its partisan vessel, the Republican Party.  There is a worthwhile debate to be had over whether the Bush era was, in fact, a traditionally conservative one.  William F. Buckley himself once remarked that Bush was conservative, but not a conservative.  He was not a part of the movement in the sense that Ronald Reagan was or Newt Gingrich continues to be a torchbearer for. 

            Much has been written on the subject of movement conservatism since the Republican Party was handed a disastrous defeat in the last general election.  While the former President Bush is certainly culpable to a certain extent for the humiliating electoral referendum of what has passed for conservatism these last nine years I think that all conservatives, myself included, need to look at the changing demographics and national economy and render a verdict on whether or not the conservatism embodied by our current representatives is the sort of conservatism that can subsist and win in 21st Century America. 

            Clichés can ruin empires.  They can also ruin political movements.  Unfortunately, conservatism has fallen prey to rampant clichés that are promulgated by a myriad of comedians and entertainers.  To my fellow youthful Americans, Stephen Colbert and comedians of his kidney hold great sway over perception of conservatives (comedy does have a liberal bias, after all).  I am hesitant to bring Mr. Colbert into a serious discussion about the state of modern conservatism as an intellectual and political movement, but I would be remiss not to highlight how entertainment media has successfully reduced conservatism to a set of ugly cultural symbols:  the gun-crazed, the gay basher, and the God fearer.   Conservatives have long wrestled with images of backwardness, bigotry, and zealous piety.  In the 1940s, when the postwar conservative movement was still in its adolescence and sowing the fundamental intellectual seeds of its platform, liberals decried nascent conservatism in America as an attempt to reinstate medieval feudalism.   Meanwhile, the average college student is, I can safely confirm, denied any knowledge of the conservative intellectual history that could challenge these nasty generalizations.   The domination of the nation’s universities by a liberal professoriate is complete.   Men like William F. Buckley Jr., Friedrich Hayek, Frank Meyer, Russel Kirk, and Wilmoore Kendall are scarcely mentioned outside of being the butt of many bad jokes.    Instead, conservatism is treated as a reactionary force in American politics – the default position of obstinate country bumpkins and avaricious plutocrats. 

            But really, who can blame these critics?  Conservatives of late have made themselves easy targets for two reasons.  First, conservatism has become ideologically rigid and rhetorically trite.  In the 1980s and 1990s, the small-government, free market message resounded because it contravened liberalism’s decades long insistence on the power of federal programs to correct society’s ills – the results of which were Leviathan bureaucracy and stagflation.  So while the totalizing nostrums of liberal policymakers had been compounding inefficiencies since the New Deal, Reagan represented the culmination of a conservative movement that offered sound reasoning for why liberalism had failed and what it could be replaced with.  

            Today, however, the twin pillars of the conservative economic policy – low taxation and deregulation – are held in disrepute.   Cut taxes and deregulate it repeated ad nauseum will not do.  As much as I agree with these mantras (in most instances) it must be acknowledged that as rhetorical tools they have become useless pabulum.   Conservatives must articulate a more nuanced economic policy that stresses long-term fiscal solvency, debt reduction, free trade, measured and responsible deregulation, and sensible arguments for why tax cuts – not spending programs – are the stuff of real economic growth.   A government-phobic stance only reinforces the perception of doctrinaire intransigence.  If conservatives can admit the necessity of limited economic regulation they will win not only more respect from non-ideological voters who are skeptical of dogmatism in any form, but they will be returning to a pragmatism that is the very essence of conservatism.

            I would also like to stress the supreme importance of shedding the image conservatives have garnered for being socially parochial.  I have been contemplating this article for some time now, and in the way of research I made it a point to start conversations with young people of different political stripes and with varying degrees of interest in politics.  To someone with only a fleeting interest in electoral politics social issues are what matter, and often function as a first foray into politics (more than likely because social issues elicit emotional responses and do not require one to be well-versed on an issue).  To win young voters, or at least not alienate them, conservatives should apply the “Don’t Tread on Me” ethos they champion in the economic sphere in the social one, as well.  This does not mean we shirk the greater task of reintroducing meaning, civic duty, religion, and something beyond shallow materialism and licentiousness into American society.  On the contrary, conservatives should fully embrace their rhetoric of individual responsibility by purging the movement of its puritanical authoritarianism so as to eliminate the inherent contradictions in their positions.  For how can we praise the right to individual choice and responsibility and still support the interminably futile “war on drugs,” which not only wastes millions of the taxpayer’s dollars but exacerbates racial tensions?  How can we continue to speak of justice and liberty when homosexuals are not allowed to marry their loved ones and when the majority of Republicans in congress opposed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?  

            To accomplish all of the above and remain relevant conservatives must follow point two of my thesis, as well:  they must govern effectively and remain principled.   My generation’s formative experiences occurred during the Bush administration and under the auspices of a Republican-dominated congress.  Two wars, a rash of scandals (Mark Foley, the Delay-Abramoff connection, the Valerie Plame leak, the Terri Schiavo episode, Black Water, etc.), and the financial crisis have severely damaged the Republican Party and conservatism’s image.  The recovery will be slow going.  But if conservative politicians can begin to shed their reactionary mien, offer alternative policy ideas that bypass hackneyed platitudes, and live out their lofty rhetoric and lead by example we may yet see the movement regain its strength and political clout. 

            It goes without saying that the party out of power naturally seems adrift and leaderless.  And already the steady stream of articles proclaiming conservatism in America “dead” seems conspicuously outdated.  A recent Gallup Poll finds that more Americans in all fifty states identify themselves as conservatives rather than liberal or very liberal.  The Democrats health care reform salvo is on precarious footing thanks to a grassroots conservative revival across the country and a smile-worthy Rasmussen Poll concludes that fifty-seven percent of Americans would vote out the entire congress – including those ossified Republican relics.  This has to mean something, right?  America has tried “change” in the Obama vein and is disappointed, yes?  Well, in a word, no.  First it is too early to predict how Obama will recover from these setbacks and second I’m afraid the president, despite his sinking poll numbers of late, represents a new breed of liberalism that has successfully adopted superficial conservative hues; in particular, conservatisms mild-mannered pragmatism.  Essentially, Obama has won the vital center by shrewd deception and still enjoys the support of those who might not agree with him on certain controversial issues, such as health care, Afghanistan-Pakistan, or bank bailouts, but who trust his judgment, nonetheless.  Like Reagan, he’s Teflon (for now.)

            The backlash Obama and the Democrats have faced this summer is, most likely, ephemeral.  The town hall meetings will eventually cease and the endless news cycle will make it all seem like a dream, as the angry voices of protest that once commanded front-page attention are lost to the archives.  I hope I’m wrong, but this is more than often the case; sustained popular outrage has a relatively short life expectancy.  If conservatives want to win in the future it will require a new language, a more tolerant and less rigid ideological platform, and exciting and articulate figures like William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, and Ronald Reagan to lend action to ideas.  If you’ll notice, those three aforementioned heroes of the conservative cannon are no more.  Conservatism, though, can live on.  One, because it is the movement of the individual and his quest for self-improvement, not only for himself but his country and mankind, and two, because that quest is the ongoing story of the United States.

But, then again, I'm only 23 -- what do I know?

Crosspost at http://www.tothepointtees.com/cgi-bin/tothepointtees/PageDisplay?Blog

Conservatives and Christians all over America are vacillating between a sense of fear of socialistic control by our current government and a hope that a revolt against such government is beginning to arise. The evidence of discontent toward these “changes” in our American way of life was revealed by the overwhelming response at the recent tea parties occurring throughout our nation.

Suddenly, there is a ray of hope. People are uniting, we hear. Americans are mad and they aren’t going to take it any more. We will band together and show the liberals that we surround them as opposed to them surrounding us. 

Maybe. But I am doubtful. 

Why? 

When I attended a tea party on April 15th I took a good look around me. While there were a few children and young adults among the crowd, the majority of the people at these tea parties were over fifty. Gray heads and middle aged spread abounded. The people who are angry, the Americans who are fighting against socialism and our new leadership are aging America. 

Where were the young people? 

In school, you say. 

Bingo. That’s our problem. Our kids are sitting in classrooms all across America. Classrooms controlled by our government. Classrooms where they are being thoroughly indoctrinated with socialism and its brother communism. Classrooms where evolution is taught as fact and creationism as a myth. Classrooms where tolerance toward deviant sexual behavior, more than reading, writing, and arithmetic, is drummed into our children’s brains from 9 till 3 everyday. 

Our children are learning history that has been filtered, twisted, and completely re-written to conform to the ideologies of the very people moms and dads, grandmas and grandpas are revolting against. They are being instructed that Islam is merely another path that leads to God, who by the way doesn’t really exist. Christianity? Well it’s just some antiquated belief held by dangerous radical extremists in America’s dying churches. 

Have you ever taken a hard look at America’s kids? They are covered with tattoos and marks from cutting themselves. They watch filth on television and the internet, they play with violent and sexually exploitive games on their play stations, they listen to mind-numbing music that is filled with profanity and encourages its listeners to violence. 

But... we want them to be socialized. We want them to fit into their society, profane and perverted that it is. Heaven forbid that our kids should be different! 

But unless our kids are different, America is toast. We can’t take back America until we take back our kids! 

Our kids have fallen for the evolutionary, anti-God, socialistic agenda that permeates American schools and the parents of this country are responsible. Moms and Dads have abdicated their authority over their children by handing them over to people who hate everything that they, the moms and dads, supposedly stand for. 

If we want to save America we must do two things. One, repent! Ask God to forgive us for relinquishing the control of the precious children God has entrusted to our care and training, into the hands of the God-hating world. Two, take back our authority over our children, accept the God-given mandate to diligently train them in the ways of God, and fill their minds with Scripture as opposed to the filth of this world. One of the best ways we can do this is by homeschooling our children (or at the very least enrolling our children in SOLID Christian schools.) We must teach them what we believe rather than allowing the enemies of God to indoctrinate them with their beliefs. 

Very soon the young people and children will be the ones governing our nation. To repeat a cliche, "children are the future". They are our hope for the survival of the America we once knew and loved and if they do not hold our beliefs, but rather the empty and ugly and frightening philosophies of those currently in power, then as Ronald Reagan once said... 

“One day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Chris Cilliza argues there were 5 myths about the 2008 election.  However, on #2, I'm not sure the data necessarily supports his conclusion...

2. A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory.

Afraid not. ... Exit polling suggests that there was no statistically significant increase in voting among either group. Black voters made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 13 percent in 2008, while young voters comprised 17 percent of all voters in 2004 and 18 percent four years later.

The surge in young and African American voters is not entirely the stuff of myth, however. Although their percentages as a portion of the electorate didn't increase measurably, Obama did seven points better among black voters than Sen. John F. Kerry did in 2004 and scored a 13-point improvement over Kerry's total among young voters.

The flat total turnout, but higher margin of victory among young voters could tell us one of two things.

1. The wave was a myth: The youth vote was the same, but they swung to Obama.  The composition changed by persuasion.
2. The wave was a reality: The youth vote likely to vote for McCain stayed home, while a wave of new young voters turned out for Obama.  The composition changed by differences in enthusiasm, ground game and coalition expansion.

 If #2 is correct, it implies these Obama voters are not persuadable swing voters, but a new generation of likely Democratic voters.  That will be a far harder barrier for Republicans to overcome in the long term.

As everyone has heard repeatedly by now, the youth vote went big for Obama. While not as monolithic as the African-American and unmarried women blocs, the 18-29 bracket gave Obama a 2-1 lead. This is not a mere anomaly, it’s indicative of a significant shift, building upon Kerry’s 9-point advantage. And if the GOP doesn’t take note of this, it could be in for a long and weary exile. It’s important to note that despite the worst times for Republicans, 1 out of 3 youth still voted for them. Considering that even I, a rather staunch conservative, was tempted to vote for the savvy young guy, that’s still a significant number. The children of die-hard Republicans are still voting their party, and the problem is the middle, the independent or casual youth voters.

As a 21-year-old so-called "Millenial", I’d like to give some much-needed insight to whoever is willing to listen.

I have yet to see any hardcore in-depth analysis from the right about the psychology of the young voter, and this only makes me more fearful the party is painfully out of touch. The warning signals have been going off since 04, but seems to be ringing on deaf ears.

To be clear about this election, McCain had absolutely no chance of winning the youth. Period. Leaving issues aside, a 72-year-old pasty computer-illiterate man with a semi-creepy smile was never, ever going to beat a sharp, articulate, young, bi-racial man speaking of hope and change. And therein lies the first GOP problem – image. The problem is two-fold, both style and substance, but (as unfortunate as it is) style is something that takes precedence. So I will address it first.

Inclusive, not divisive, rhetoric

It’s not so much the physical makeup of the candidate that’s the problem, but the rhetoric and style of communication that has alienated the youth in the center. They are tired of divisive bantering, and have very little patience for partisan talk. They respond extremely negatively to “us versus them” speak. For a clear example of what youth do NOT want to hear, Sarah Palin referred to “real” Virginia and “pro-American” states. I shook my head when I heard that. This is absolutely toxic to the moderate youth. More than ever they want to hear inclusive dialogue, and Obama knows this and exploited it masterfully.

What the youth want to hear is someone who makes a clear effort to understand everyone’s views. Bush’s “with us or against” attitude has been a big factor in creating this backlash.

Project a sense of community

Another aspect Obama tapped into was a new sense of community that my generation responds highly to. Currently there is a deep longing to be part of a movement, to “change the world” so to speak. Group socialization is being driven by online networks, and gives youth a way to share their identities and identify common goals. Obama’s web efforts were absolutely genius in this regard, and I believe changed campaigning permanently. The GOP needs to catch up in this aspect, and fast. With Obama’s network in place, they have a massive advantage. But it’s not enough to copycat, the GOP needs a unique system, something creative and unique. Imitation is easily spotted and reinforces the perception the party is lacking original thought.

The one exception to this was the grassroots effort of Ron Paul, with his record-setting online donations and web campaigning. I remember distinctly at one point he had the highest political YouTube views, second only to Obama.

Use comedy, not fear, to attack the opponents

The vast majority of the online ads against Obama fell flat on the youth audience. Check out the YouTube comments and ratings for proof. Ominous music and low voices come off as contrived and phony. Right now there is huge skepticism of any negative message that could be construed as “fear-mongering”. Again, this is a backlash against the rhetoric of the last 8 years, which was defined by repeated threats of potential terrorist acts. They want to hear – brace yourselves – “hope”. They don’t find Democrats threatening at all, but rather Republicans. The one ad that I think had some potential was the popular “The One” which sarcastically mocked Obama. Now I doubt that it swayed any youth voters, but it might have made them laugh, which is better than making them roll their eyes. Palin was absolutely disqualified in the eyes of the youth, and largely because of the effective SNL skits and other mockeries. They came to honestly believe she literally wanted to ban books and teach creationism in school, because comedy became reality to them.

The GOP needs to find comedy and use it effectively if they want to frame the candidates and issues in their favor. The perception that liberals are creative and conservatives are not has some truth to it, because I see opportunities to slam and mock Democrats go unused, while no gaffe of Republicans goes unpunished. I can easily see some talent such as Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of South Park and Team America, being hired to produce something damning of liberals. Matt Stone has been quoted as saying “I hate conservatives, but I really f------ hate liberals” – there are sympathetic voices somewhere in the media, exploit them!

The issues

The next candidate must be detached from the Iraq War

While I believe that campaign style is what really elevated Obama, the issues are still significant, which is why Kerry, with a mediocre campaign, also beat Bush handily. The most glaring issue is the Iraq War. This really is the deal-breaker among the youth. Any future Republican candidate has to be completely disconnected from the decision to invade Iraq, and even then the party identification is still tainted. A future Republican candidate does not have to completely condemn the war, but he/she has to make a compelling case that he/she can be completely trusted to use military force only in the most threatening situation. Unless he/she can do this, expect the Democrat to be favored.

Distance him/herself from religious fundamentalism

One of the best ways to alienate the middle youth is to pander to the religious right. Yet again, the blame can be put on Bush, who referenced God in his decision to invade Iraq, among other things. As a second example, look to Elizabeth’s Dole “godless money” ad. A completely loser. In a sense this is connected to style and rhetoric – Obama’s church was hardly mainstream, but he was able to get a free pass because of his inclusive speeches and conscious efforts to downplay religion as a wedge. It’s when politicians start giving the impression that they want to mix religion into politics that the youth get turned off. And now that Obama’s pastor has been made an issue, expect any Republican politician’s pastor to be thoroughly inspected for inflammatory comments.

Downplay gay marriage – or lose the youth

While middle America still isn’t fond of gay marriage – see the bans in Florida, Arizona, and California, the younger generation is. Polling estimates about 75% of millennials think gay marriage should be legal. It is truly only a matter of time until gay marriage is a losing issue for Republicans to exploit. And some of the biggest opponents of gay marriage are African-Americans, a group that is clearly out of reach for the GOP. If Republicans think in 2012 they can nominate a candidate that aggressively wants an amendment to ban gay marriage, and win, they are mistaken. This can cause a big rift between the religious right and moderates, and it’s an issue that will need to be addressed. I personally believe the most painless solution is an end to the government use of “marriage” – and replaced with a universal “civil union/contract” that is completely detached from the traditional definition. Marriage can be defined by faith communities, and churches should be protected to practice their tradition. I see no other easy resolution to this issue in the future.

Downplay abortion as well

The generational attitudes about abortion haven’t changed much, from what I’ve read. So I don’t necessarily think a shift in policy is required, but the way it’s phrased needs to be changed. A presidential candidate should emphasize that – regardless of how they think it should be treated legally – they won’t use their power as president to criminalize it. I believe even a completely anti-abortion candidate can win the moderates if they assure Americans they won’t push the issue on a federal level.

Say nice things about the environment

Right now there is a (in my opinion, silly and contrived) green movement among the youth. It’s ubiquitous, even Miley Cyrus – an environmental policy expert I’m sure – is singing and imploring kids to go green. Whether this translates into actual action, who knows. But it’s catchy at the moment, and Republicans can’t ignore it and go on endlessly about offshore drilling. “Drill, baby, drill!” is hardly an attractive response to “Go Green!” A concern for the environment needs to be sincerely expressed. If a cap-and-trade system is bad for the country, it needs to be made clear that the costs outweigh the benefits. The moderate’s knee-jerk reaction to global warming, etc, is to “save the planet”, any action otherwise needs to be defended clearly and emphatically.

Explain why Big Government sucks

…and do it well. While Democrats are going to inevitably interpret their wins as a mandate for big programs, that’s not necessarily the case. Most youth don’t quite draw a connection between Obama and expansive, wasteful government, at least no more than to Bush. It’s possible that after 4 or 8 years they’ll listen up. Free markets are still fairly popular among moderate youth, financial crisis notwithstanding. There are plenty of government programs that could be attacked – such as social security. When the youth start to realize that they might not have any retirement because of the nature of social security, they might be receptive to arguments that government programs aren’t the best idea. Emphasize the beauty of individualism, attack the idea of centralized power dictating their lives, and there will be an audience. And that whole mandated volunteer service plan of Obama’s might not be so popular after 4 years.

In Conclusion

It’s important for the older generations to see the current political scene from the perspective of generation Y – imagine your entire political opinions being informed by a few years of Clinton and eight years of Bush. Imagine you know little to nothing about Carter or Reagan.

Based on what I’ve outlined, the GOP needs a candidate that speaks inclusively, expresses moderation on social issues, is disconnected from Bush and the Iraq war, expresses concern for the environment, and runs a campaign that is web and community-based, relies less on fear/negativity, and refuses to pander to fundamentalism. Coincidentally I essentially summarized Obama’s campaign. While reading these items, it seems all too obvious, but based on the performance of McCain and the GOP, it apparently isn’t. Looking at the lineup of Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Sarah Palin, I’d say the Republicans are doomed to lose the youth vote for some time.

As a sidenote to Obama's 66-32 blowout among 18-29 voters, check out how these same voters voted for the House. Not much different: 63-34.

So, in casting an identity politics vote for Barack Obama, a hip young (by political standards) African American, young voters were also apt to vote straight ticket for the Democrats down ballot. Nor is this new: the 2004 Democratic margin in the House among these voters mirrored the Kerry vote (+11 for Democrats vs. +9 for Kerry).

People have been focusing on whether the youth vote was up. It was -- slightly: going from 17 to 18 percent. But the real story about the youth vote is not how many "new" voters Obama got to show up. It's how he produced a gargantuan 25% swing among existing young voters, or those who were sure to vote for the first time anyway.

How big?

18 percent times a 25 percent increase in the Democratic margin equals 4.5 points, or a majority of Obama's popular vote margin. Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.

So, to clarify here: Obama's youth margin = 73 electoral votes. Without the economic crisis, this would have been the difference.

In the House, the youth margin for Democratic candidates was up 18 points from 2004 and 7 points from 2006 (with a 50% increase in the voter pool from '06). The 18-29 demographic's net contribution to Democratic margins in the House went from 12% x 22% = 2.64% in 2006, to 18% x 29% = 5.22% in 2008. How many of our guys lost by 2.6% or less? And it wasn't about "more" or "new" young voters. For the most part it was the same young voters, who were conditioned to vote for Democratic candidates after switching to Obama.

Related to this are African Americans. Here too, turnout was up a point from 12% to 13%, or Census + 1. But that's only part of the story. The biggest part is Obama's increased margins, moving from 88-11 in '04 to 95-4 in '08. The black vote's net contribution to Democrats moved from 9.7 points to 11.8 points (91% x 13%), or an increase of 2.1 points.

Now, let's be generous and shave 10% off the youth effect assuming some of these youths are African American, but also tempered by the fact that the young black vote is already so highly Democratic that a 25% swing is impossible here. 4.1 percent (18-29) + 2.1 percent (AA's) equals 6.2 percent. Obama's current popular vote margin is 6.1 percent.

Obama's entire popular vote majority is accounted for by his increased appeal to youth and African Americans.

This is not to say that a white male (or female) Democratic candidate would not have won the election. The youth and African American figures would have moved some, though not as strongly for them, and if it was Hillary, you'd have seen a similar phenomenon with women voters. So, simply transposing 2004 figures onto 2008 isn't the right baseline. But this is a dramatic statement nonetheless. Obama has reshaped the electorate. And it's been only partially through new voter registration. He has gobbled up every last, existing young voter and African American (FTW, I get the distinct sense that Condi Rice too voted for Obama).

For more in uplifting news, don't miss Greg Mankiw.

This can't be helping.

McCain handlers kicking young McCain supporters out of rally crowd. Not sure how this helps.

Lara Elborno, a student at the University of Iowa, said she was approached by a police officer and a McCain staffer and was told she had to leave or she would be arrested for trespassing.

“It was a very confusing, very frustrating situation,” Elborno said. “I said that I had a right to be there, I wasn’t doing anything disruptive — I was sitting, waiting for the rally to start.”

[snip]

Elborno said after seeing the people who were asked to leave, she was concerned that McCain’s staffers were profiling people on appearance to determine who might be a potential protester.

“When I started talking to them, it kind of became clear that they were kind of just telling people to leave that they thought maybe would be disruptive, but based on what? Based on how they looked,” Elborno said. “It was pretty much all young people, the college demographic.”

Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.

“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”

[Emphasis mine.]

Going to be a long 4 years. Thanks, John.

Despite the polls trending toward Obama as of late, he is still only three points ahead in the latest Rasmussen poll, and tied with McCain in the latest Gallup poll. By all accounts, the race is still neck and neck, but are the polls really hiding a lead for McCain?

There are two reasons to believe that McCain may actually be about 2 to 4 points ahead of Obama at this point in the race. One reason has been talked about quite a bit in this race, but the other, and arguably just as important reason, has been almost completely ignored. 

The first reason is the Bradley Effect. The Bradley Effect states that black politicians(and indeed other minority candidates) tend to do better in the polls than they do on election day. Many pollsters and pundits are saying that there is no Bradley Effect in play, because they did not see it in the primaries. 

This is not a good measure of the Bradley Effect for the general election. The reason there was no Bradley Effect in the primary, is because most of the voters that would have contributed to the Bradley Effect, never said they would vote for Obama. They said they would, and did, vote for Hillary Clinton. She acted as a lighting rod, eliminating almost completely any evidence of a Bradley Effect. 

Though the Bradley Effect will probably be at least a small factor, it should not sway the race any more than about 2 points. At this point in the race, a Bradley Effect would put McCain and Obama in a dead tie.

The second and more significant reason is the youth vote. This is because youth voters are notoriously unreliable on election day. This is not for lack of support of their candidate, it is that they do not show up to the polls on election day. 

This youth problem is a much bigger problem than the Bradley Effect. The "youth effect" could have up to a 3 to 5 point effect on the race in McCain's favor. Though not many pollsters are discussing this, it is a very real factor, and one the Obama campaign is discussing. 

At this point in the race, with these effects factored in, there is reason to believe McCain could be ahead as much as 3 points. At the very least, these effects have McCain and Obama tied at this point.

Will the Bradley Effect and the youth vote come into play and hurt Obama on election day? Only 40 more days until we know for sure.

This post was actually written off a Release from Ashley Barbera, but I thought I'd cross post for your enjoyment.

--

You all may remember that in July, we sponsored a contest on STORM, with the prize being free housing at the Republican National Convention.  The College Republicans who won had a great week in Minneapolis-St. Paul, getting to participate in some great events during the day, and watch the speakers in the convention hall every night.

However, it turns out that one of the winners wasn't a CR.  He wasn't even a Republican.  Michael Connery, a blogger for the leftist site FutureMajority.com, disguised his identity in order to infiltrate STORM and become one of the winners.  His ultimate goal was to obtain embarrassing footage of College Republican leaders in order to harm Senator McCain's standing with young voters, but he failed.

What's worse, another blogger reports that Connery conspired with a Rock the Vote employee to complete his subterfuge, reporting that: "Using dozens of different e-mail addresses, Connery and friends voted up his account. Sarah Burris, an activist with Rock the Vote and a pal of Connery's, has 30 different email accounts registered with storm…He pretended not to know his friend Burgiss (sic), in town working with Rock the Vote, throughout the convention." 

Rock the Vote is a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organization, subject to strict laws and regulations governing its participation in the election process.  The organization and its employees are legally prohibited from participating in activities that would promote a specific political party or candidate over another.

I have to say, this whole thing is really lame.  This guy lied and tricked his way into winning a College Republican contest.  Other than perhaps fulfilling some childhood dream to be a spy, what exactly did Connery accomplish?  Absolutely nothing.  Meanwhile, the poor CR who was first runner up in the contest was robbed of his or her chance to go to the Convention.  After last week, I can say firsthand that going to a political convention is an incredible experience, and Michael Connery should be ashamed that he stole that amazing opportunity away from a dedicated young activist just so he could try to write a story he could sell to a magazine.

Ethan and Charlie both released statements on the issue:

"This sort of behavior from an employee of a non-partisan organization is completely unacceptable," said Ethan Eilon, Executive Director of the College Republican National Committee. "Sarah Burris' participation in Connery's plot is unethical at best, and is possibly illegal.  The College Republicans demand that Burris be dismissed from her position, and that Rock the Vote issue a public apology for their connection to this matter."

College Republican National Chairman Charlie Smith added: "Connery and Burris' twisted plot of lies and subterfuge is ridiculous behavior in a free and open democracy.  Their sad attempt to embarrass the College Republicans demonstrates the liberal desperation to discredit the conservative youth movement.  Barack Obama's advantage with young voters is rapidly dwindling. Several recent polls have shown Obama's lead among young voters has dropped from 30 points to nearly single digits in only a month.  Connery and Burris' behavior shows that Democrats will clearly do anything to disguise the rapid shift of young voters towards the candidacies of Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin."

The most recent Gallup tracking poll grants Obama a 55-38 advantage with voters in the 18-29 bracket, but that numerical disparity ignores the cultural, cultish following and outpouring of enthusiasm -- we all know Obama has triggered something in this younger generation, particularly for far left liberals. Palin might change the statistics, she might not -- but what she's already done is fired young conservatives the hell up about this election. Here's a sample of Facebook today:

That's majorly different than usual. Two liberal friends this afternoon volunteered that they would probably be giving McCain another look for this choice. Over at Right-Wing Vitriol, we've been proponents of Palin since March, but we were all legitimately excited about this pick. Only Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin could have created a swelling of young support like this, and only McCain would ever pull the trigger on this one.

Not just the youth either. This afternoon, my grandmother, an avid NPR listener who remains a registered Democrat in Florida (because in the early 1950s in still Old South Florida, nobody was a Republican) wrote a check for the max to the McCain campaign. Per descriptions by my mother, grandpa, and herself, she has never been this excited about politics. Her younger sister, a Bush Pioneer in 2004, had reneged on her vow not to bundle this election cycle. McCain raised $3 million today. This is what can happen.

This can't be only framed as a play for independent voters -- it's a call to the faithful to energize and turn out.

Katherine Miller blogs daily at Right-Wing Vitriol.