The “new voter”: Obama’s risky gamble
One of the recurring storylines in this long Democratic presidential primary process has been the astonishingly high turnout among primary voters. And indeed, the enthusiasm and participation in this primary season on the Democratic side has been staggering — over 3.5 million people cast their votes for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Headline after headline pointed to unprecedented enthusiasm and participation by “new voters” — especially young, college-age voters participating in the democratic process for the first time: “Obama camp credits youth turnout,” “Obama’s Youth Vote Triumph,” “Young Voters Helped Fuel Obama’s Strong Showing”.
Obama was able to garner the support of millions of newly-registered voters who this year participated in a presidential primary for the first time. CNN reported in May that new voter registration in 21 states (those available to provide data) during the first three months of 2008 was up a whopping 64 percent compared to the first three months of 2004. Obama’s campaign is seeking to translate this primary strength into victory in November by riding a wave of record turnout of young, new voters.
While the numbers are impressive, this strategy is by no means new. Eschewing the pursuit of a greater share of the existing electorate, the game plan of most Democratic presidential candidates since the 1970s has been to instead focus on expanding the pool with new voters (who presumably are inclined to vote for them). The bad news: since then, the White House has been dominated by Republican presidents. In fact, only two Democratic presidents have been elected since 1972 (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton).
The common view among most political commentators and, indeed, among most Americans, is that Obama’s ability to inspire record turnout and enthusiasm among young people will translate into a big advantage for Barack Obama heading into the general election.
The power of the “youth vote” has been hyped during many campaign cycles, reaching a new height in 2004 with initiatives like “Rock The Vote” and Sean “P. Diddy” Combs’ “Vote or Die” campaign. On the eve of Election Day in 2004, CNN proclaimed that the youth vote was a “wildcard” that could swing the election:
The youth vote wildcard could be pivotal in states like Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio, home to large student populations and tense presidential battles.
More than 100,000 young people have registered to vote in Michigan and about that same number have registered in Wisconsin, according to reports. College campuses have been abuzz for months about the presidential election.
“In the past, many assumed the nation’s youth weren’t engaged politically,” said Shaan Gandhi, a sophomore at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. “A lot of students are excited about this election. This should challenge the assumption of youth apathy.”
Sound familiar?
Except the vaunted “youth vote” never materialized. In fact, it never has. Voters under the age of 30 are notoriously apathetic when it comes to voting. The youth vote’s share of the total votes cast has consistently underperformed compared to its share of the total citizens since 1972. Only 49 percent of voters between the ages of 18-29 turned out in 2004 — compared with 68 percent of voters age 30 or higher. The 18-24 age bracket (47 percent turnout in 2004 was considered an “encouraging” improvement) consistently yields a far lower turnout than any other age group. By comparison, voters aged 55-74 managed 73 percent turnout in 2004.
Grassroots progressives are swearing that this time it’s different. Michael Connery, writing in The Nation’s “Passing Through” blog, warns Democrats not to underestimate the youth vote in this election cycle.
Connery bashes Democratic pollster Paul Maslin, who proclaimed the youth vote “not that big of a deal” in a piece he wrote for Salon. He claims that Maslin misses the data that show the youth vote has increased dramatically in every Democratic primary contest (and indeed it does). He claims that “turnout is always lower in the primaries than in the general election,” and therefore these big primary numbers must mean huge increases in turnout for Obama in November.
Except that’s not true.
According to the director of American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate (CSAE):
“High primary turnout does not necessarily augur high general election turnout,” Gans writes. “In 1972, the year of the highest presidential primary turnout [yes, ever: 30.9 percent of the available electorate vs. 30.2 in 2008], turnout in the general election experienced the largest decline of any election since World War II when turnout declined…because a large percentage of Americans were outside the country fighting that war.”
Democrats frequently point to the fact that Democratic turnout far outstripped the meager turnout for Republican primaries this year as a reason for their confidence in victory in November. But again, this “common sense” isn’t borne out by the data. A political science study of more than 300 state presidential primaries between 1972 and 2004 found that “No matter which party had the edge in nomination contest turnout, there is no resultant advantage in the general election for that party.” What’s more:
In fact, twice as many times, the party with the higher turnout in a state primary lost that state in November than won it. In roughly two-thirds of the states, Democrats had the higher turnout, but only carried those states about 40% of the time.
Nevertheless, the Obama campaign seems committed to the “new voter” strategy. During an argument on CNN with Clinton supporter Paul Begala, who insisted that Obama needs to win over lower-class white and Hispanic voters if he wants to beat McCain in November, Donna Brazile, an Obama supporter and Democratic strategist, claimed that “we don’t have to just rely on blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” (i.e.: they’re betting that large numbers of new voters can make up for that section of the electorate)
It’s possible that maybe the American political landscape has in fact dramatically changed. Maybe the 2008 election will be the one that breaks from the historical pattern and finally vindicates the true power of the “youth vote.” Obama is — for better or worse — apparently betting that it will. But it’s by no mean a sure bet.
Now that Rezko has been convicted, both Obama and Blagojevich will VERY SOON be indicted under 18 USC 1346, which is the section under which Rezko was found guilty.
FOR YOUR READERS:
Evelyn Pringle has just completed her series on Obama at opednews.com. You should review the articles, and then review the discussion of 18 USC 1346 provided, in order to see for what activities Obama will be indicted:
Final Chapter - Curtain Time for Barack Obama Evelyn Pringle 05/22/2008 2
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part V Evelyn Pringle 05/18/2008 9
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part IV Evelyn Pringle 05/16/2008 22
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part III Evelyn Pringle 05/15/2008 11
Curtain Time for Barack Obama - Part II Evelyn Pringle 05/13/2008 15
Curtain Time For Barack Obama - Part I Evelyn Pringle 05/12/2008 33
THEN, your readers should study this EXCELLENT discussion of 18 USC 1346 from:
http://www.groom.com/_library/downloads/NAPPAArticle-Feb2006.pdf.