Welcome, Guest!
News analysis: How the Millennials will vote, and why it matters
Published: Monday, October 6, 2008 - 9:58pm
HOPING TO LEARN more about the merits of the candidates’ positions, I gave up a Friday night to watch the first presidential debate.
It came close to being a waste of time since the “debate” was basically a talking point showcase — no discussion about why one approach to a problem is better than another.
For a newcomer to presidential campaigns and for someone who wants to make an independent choice (and not just fall in line with what my family does) there seems to be an overwhelming amount of information.
I don’t know enough facts to make an informed decision about where I stand on every issue. Actually, most people don’t.
So unless I have hours to brush up on the issues (like Sarah Palin) by reading both conservative and liberal (not like Palin) information, as well as studying neutral sites, I will have to base my “figurative vote” on something else.
In that sense the debate was useful. I gained insights into the temperament and leadership styles of Barack Obama and John McCain.
Obama’s presidential demeanor and calm tone contrasted sharply with McCain’s condescending aggression and irrelevant bragging about whom he knows. We don’t care if you know Henry Kissinger or Queen Victoria.
McCain’s performance did not impress independents, nor did he gain the support of young voters. Not that it matters. Youth votes were already not his to be had.
Party identification among 18 - 29 year olds. Graph courtesy of the PEW Research Center. (click to enlarge)
Since young people are traditionally seen as apathetic, McCain didn’t bother with the youth constituency. Obama did.
He effectively brought the Millennials into the political process using social-networking sites like Facebook. He inspired new voters by convincing them that their grassroots support is essential to change, and he did most of it on the Internet.
The number of young voters in the 2008 presidential election has tripled compared to the 2004 elections. In some states it actually quadrupled, and Obama got to them first.
The implication of having the support and loyalty of this important group of voters is far reaching. We will start to see a realignment of American politics. Political dominance will shift from the conservatives to liberals.
So, yes, not knowing how to send an e-mail does matter. Because of his “technologically out of touch mindset,” McCain probably never even considered original ways of reaching young voters. Remarkable, given our numbers and the legitimate political worries we have.
We Millennials are the first American generation who will do less well economically than our parents. We are faced with more and tougher challenges than our parents were.
It has become hard to trust the government, politicians, or corporations. How will the latest economic mess affect student loans? Is there going to be a recession? What are my job prospects? What about the environmentally related problems we have to solve?
Young voters have found this year's campaign especially interesting. Graph courtesy of the PEW Research Center. (click to enlarge)
Despite these very real issues, the current nature of American politics seems to be more concerned with partisan vendettas and narrow party interests than with tackling these far-reaching problems.
During that first debate Obama showed a willingness to reach consensus by not being afraid to say when he agrees with McCain.
Not having the pathetic attitude of “I’m always right and you (or your party) are always wrong” is essential to leadership in an increasingly complicated world. Obama’s 21st-century attitude inspires hope for the change we desperately need.
Young voters are cynical and consequently apathetic about politics. Many feel that nobody is listening, or that their vote won't make a difference. They don't believe that the government, media, or the economic system is functioning in a fair and transparent manner.
In addition to the cynicism, there are logistical reasons why young voters are generally perceived as a target audience not worth bothering with. Young people are elusive. They often move and don’t show up in campaign databases.
Obama, however, understood how and why to reach us. He has used the Internet extensively. YouTube links on Facebook keep us on top of politics. Although the Republicans came late to the social-networking, recruiting, and volunteering game, they are there, but in considerably smaller numbers.
By now you probably have the feeling that I support Obama. Yes, I do. I listened to him when he spoke in Champaign, during his Senate campaign in 2004. I was in middle school, and I was impressed. What young voters like most about him is that he strives to win over people of different opinions. He does not dismiss them.
I like that because I'm sure if I talked with supporters of especially the Green Party, but also the Republican or the Libertarian parties, we would find that we probably agree at least a little about some issues. Problem is we don't really talk.
Even at Uni, where intelligent students are supposed to be open to other views, the minority conservative students feel uncomfortable (recall Assistant Director Sue Kovacs’ e-mail about political bullying?). Similarly a Uni student started the “Young Republicans [stuck in Liberal Land]” Facebook group. They believe they are harassed because of their political views. What does this “harassment” entail — impolite disagreement? Or is it more?
Since we generally limit political conversations to those we agree with or use media that validate our views, we are unsophisticated when it comes to political thinking. It is essential that we listen to opposing views and really get to the bottom of where the opinions are coming from.
I know I would feel awkward in a face-to-face debate/discussion but I think a Facebook or an Online Gargoyle debate could be informative. That would be a start — genuinely the only way to fix the mess we are in is to learn how to negotiate. To do that you have to listen to and respect your opponents, much as Obama has done on his way to earning the support of so many Millennials.
Comments
Millennials voting
Hey - I would love to participate in an online debate. I have to say, I wouldn't have much good to say about John McCain, though. He can't even use the internet! What an old fogy! Hope you're right about the realignment.
I hope I'm right about the
I hope I'm right about the realignment too, but desperate McCain is pulling out some really negative ads and unfortunately they are effective. One would think that the American public would finally be getting sick of them (given that there is so much at stake), but maybe that's too much to hope for. The uninformed often falls for the Republicans' cowardly ads.
I forgot to mention in my article that a lot of the polls are based information gathered from landline subscribers- which does not give us a complete picture of attitudes. Most young people are cell phone subscribers and since they support the Democratic ticket Obama may have even more support than the polls suggest. But who knows anything can happen.
Two things:
Two things:
1) Starting earlier this year, most tracking polls incorporate cellphone numbers as well. In fact, the more reputable polling institutions use what's known as RDD to get ahold of participants. RDD stands for Random Digital Dialing, and is a process where a computer randomly constructs a plausible telephone number and calls it. The number may not exist, but if it does, it's a truly random sample. Although your poll stats don't take this into account, the daily tracking polls do. In addition, with more and more people have cell phones, it's harder and harder to say that incorporating cell phone users benefits Obama. The one thing that can be said about the accuracy about the polling is this: polls use historical election data and therefore may not be accurate for this election since this election is breaking those historical trends. If young voters turn out in swarms, as they haven't done in the past, the polling methods may be very inaccurate.
2) Conventional wisdom was that negative "Rovian" politics works, but this election is proving otherwise in a number of ways. First, Clinton's pervasively negative tactics in the primaries did not work sufficiently for her to capture the nomination. There are a number of excuses you can make for this, such as "people were turned off by negative attacks from Hillary because she is a woman," or, "the primary electorate is a different demographic than the presidential election electorate and the latter will be more persuaded by negative campaigning." Perhaps there is some truth to the previous two statements, but I think there are two underlying reasons for by McCain's negative campaigning won't work this election season. First and most importantly, the economic hardships are worrying people a lot more than distractions and silly issues brought up by negative campaigning. People see negative campaigning as a waste of time when something serious needs to be addressed. Second, McCain has crossed a certain line where even Karl Rove himself said he went to far. Negative campaigning is a fine line between outright lying and making yourself look like an fool and distorting your opponents to cast doubt in their eyes. In addition, I believe to a certain extent the U.S. population has grown somewhat accustom to negative campaigning in a way that it doesn't affect them nearly as much as it might have. That's not to say negative campaigning doesn't work anymore -- it clearly does. My point is that it's becoming harder and harder to draw the line between enough and too much.
Post new comment