MyDD :: The Youth DID Vote

The Youth DID Vote

by Matt Stoller, Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:27:41 AM EST

The conventional wisdom is flat-out wrong. The youth voted. And unlike 2000, when they were split evenly, the group went for Kerry. In fact, it was the only age group that did.

At least 20.9 million Americans under the age of 30 voted in 2004, an increase of 4.6 million over 2000,1 and the turnout rate among these voters rose from about 42.3% to 51.6%, a sharp rise of 9.3 percentage points, according to final national exit polls and an early tally of votes cast. Youth voter turnout was especially high in the contested battleground states. "This is phenomenal," said CIRCLE Director William A. Galston. "It represents the highest youth turnout in more than a decade, 4 percentage points higher than the previous peak year of 1992."

Because young people participated in considerably larger numbers than they had in the past, they kept pace with the higher turnout of Americans of all ages. Voters under the age of 30 constituted the same proportion of all voters as they did in 2000 (about 18%). Young people voted at a much higher rate in contested, "battleground" states.2 In the ten most contested states, youth turnout was 64%, up 13 percentage points from 2000. In the battleground states, the youth share of the electorate was 19%. In the remaining 40 states and the District of Columbia, youth turnout was 47% and the youth share of the electorate was 18%. One explanation for the higher rates of participation in the battleground states is that there was greater voter outreach and political advertising in these states. Current research shows that youth participate when they are asked to do so.

Tags: Demographics (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Stolen election, exit poll analysis confirms (none / 0)

News Update from Citizen for Legitimate Government
November 3, 2004
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://www.legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news
Ohio Stolen (blog entry, gnn.tv) 2004-11-03 16:26:30 "Greg Palast and Randi Rhodes reported today that the state of Ohio was stolen by the Republicans in election 2004. Ohio was the critical state that tipped the balance, giving the presidency to Bush. Turns out one County in Ohio, equipped with Diebold electronic voting machines, reported NEGATIVE 25,000 votes. Wha?!? That's what at least one election official in Ohio said. The votes from that County are lost. Not counted. GONE!"

Fixed - The Stealing of Another Election (Democratic Underground.com) --by EarlG --Kerry winning Exit Polls --"FRAUD LOOKS PROBABLE --SoCalDem has done a statistical analysis... ...on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results. In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error. So, we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits vs. A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits."

Address to receive newsletter: clg_newsletter-subscribe@mlm.legitgov.org
Address to not receive newsletter: clg_newsletter-unsubscribe@mlm.legitgov.org
(or, pls. write to: signup@legitgov.org, and I can add your name to the roster) lrp/mdr

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Get unlimited calls to

U.S./Canada

by leschwartz on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:29:17 AM EST

This is possible (none / 0)

Problem is, without a whistle blower or a complete fuck up on the part of the people doing the fixing, it's 100% unprovable. It's like counting snipers on the grassy hill in Dallas.

by Geotpf on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 03:48:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is possible (none / 0)

I agree. My gut says that the Electronic machines may have had something fishy. But Geoptf is right...Unless you find PROOF, there is nothing to be done. Besides, even if you find proof, if it isn't found before the Electors vote, it makes no difference this election. Even if it is tied to Bush and Rove, I can't see the GOP controlled congress voting to impeach Bush. Although if they did, I would gain an enormous amount of respect for them. Of course this would damage the party, so if they can find a whistleblower...

by yitbos96bb on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:43:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is possible (none / 0)

And given the popular vote totals, Bush would still have "legitimacy" even if it's proven. Democrats would challenge Ohio's electors, neither candidate would win the EV, and it would go to the House, which would hand it to Bush anyway - unless you could prove vote theft in Florida and other large states as well.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is possible (none / 0)

Possibly. Of course if fraud was discovered and a judge threw out al those votes, that may make a difference in popular vote. I question the PV total but I still think Bush got the highest PV total even if there was fraud. If fraud was found out before the Electors voted, then the e-votes could be thrown out by a judge, possible making Kerry the winner. Of course, there could be consequences, although if it was found out that Bush fraudelently won the election (with proof) I can't see people just accepting it. We suspected in Florida in 2000, but nothing was ever proven. Although the Felon list was sleazy, it was not fraud in the sense I am talking about.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Duh (3.00 / 1)

"Because young people participated in considerably larger numbers than they had in the past, they kept pace with the higher turnout of Americans of all ages."

In short, da yutes turned out at roughly the same rate as before SCALED FOR THE OVERALL GREATER INTEREST IN THIS ELECTION. I.e., no special youth turnout occured!

by rfr on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:47:17 AM EST

Re: Duh (none / 0)

This is exactly right.

Yeah, the youth voted more. So did the 30-somethings. So did the 40-somethings. So did the 50-somethings. So did the elderly.

EVERYBODY voted more. Which means that there is absolutely no evidence that special appeals to youth worked one iota.

Sorry, Matt, but Carville was right.

by BigModerate on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:12:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Duh (none / 0)

OTOH, it may be that without those appeals the youth turnout would have been proportionally smaller. I think the youth turnout efforts got press, but wasn't necessarily bigger than many of the other turnout efforts (such as those mounted by religious organizations and affiliates).

by PghArch on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:35:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Duh (none / 0)

So explain why the youth broke 54-44% for Kerry this time around instead of 50/50 like Bush v Gore in 2000?

Most appeals to young voters were extremely partisan and issue based in nature - the 10 point break for Kerry is the proof that this worked.

Don't take this for granted or say that the youth vote meant nothing.

It's the only demographic that really broke for Kerry, and this increase in turnout ended a 32 year decline. Democrats are going to need these young voters - and all the new ones coming into the system in the next 4 years - if we're going to build a progressive majority.

Recognize that they did their part, or risk losing them again.

Music for America: Music and Other Social Causes

by Smiley on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Duh (none / 0)

D - R - A - F - T

by rfr on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 03:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Duh (none / 0)

Actually, the 30-44 year olds did NOT vote "more." They were the only group to have FEWER voters this year than in 2000.

And with swing states like Pennsylvania going to Kerry for no other reason than because "youth" participation was up to 21% of the electorate, yes the youth vote made a difference....it just didn't win the election.

Seeing as how we were the ONLY age group to favor Kerry nationaly (and in PA), I really hate to think what would have happened WITHOUT any outreach to younger voters.

But, we can't be expected to carry the election all by ourselves - were you really hoping we would?

by jennyk on Fri Nov 05, 2004 at 03:14:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Grow our base (none / 0)

The youth vote was, and has always been, the strong majority of the Dems. Why can't we start finding a way to keep those people throughout their life?

Imagine the future political map if our target demographic was 18 to 39 year olds in 10 years and 18 to 49 year olds in 20. We need to find a way to keep the current youth on the left for a lifetime.

by uvajeD Again on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 09:13:37 AM EST

Part of the problem... (none / 0)

... is parenthood. Once people have children, they change. They naturally want to protect them, and become susceptible to the phantom "dangers" the Right constantly demagogues on (i.e., sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll - or these days, hip-hop).

Democrats have generally reacted by moving to the right on these issues, which avoids losing the parents but alienates the youth. We need to find a better way.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:16:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Part of the problem... (none / 0)

I think we should go the personal freedoms route. The GOP says they are for personal freedoms, but only their approved list. We need to figure out a way to promote the personal freedom issues without alienating others.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 03:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, the Youth did NOT Vote (none / 0)

While the under 30 crowd voted, an important NEW voting group, the 18-24 year olds did not vote. They had a dispicable 10% turnout. Now, you tell me if thats a good turnout. I am very glad that the 25-30 year old range came out in pretty good numbers, but the 18-24 year olds disappointed me.

by RussTC3 on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:03:49 AM EST

Re: Actually, the Youth did NOT Vote (none / 0)

Thanks I wanted to make that point as well. If there is a draft, they are the first to go over there. We will see how many turn out next election in the case.

I just don't get it. I couldn't wait to vote when I turned 18 for the 96 election. I think we need non-partisan GOTV starting in high school with the freshmen. Make them understand how important this is.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, the Youth did NOT Vote (none / 0)

I love when they bitch about a 21 year old drinking law (those 18-20) or how policies all favor older working adults. OF COURSE...If you don't vote, the politicians need to pander to you. Why do you think the seniors get so much? They vote in large groups.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 11:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It works both ways (none / 0)

If both major parties agree on the latest anti-youth proposal, what is there for a young person to vote for?

It's a vicious cycle, sure; the youth don't vote, so both parties ignore them, so they don't vote. But we shouldn't work just one side of the equation. We need to work harder to turn out young voters, but we also need to call on Democrats to quit ignoring young voters.

If you're always playing the fear card, it's a pretty good sign you're not playing with a full deck!

by Mathwiz on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 12:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It works both ways (none / 0)

I agree 100%. I thinkt he current Dems don't see the motivation for going after this group that hard because they feel they don't vote. The Dems need to do this as it could be their equivalent of the Christian Right if they can find a way to motivate and solidfy that group year in and out.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, the Youth did NOT Vote (none / 0)

Where are you getting that number from?

by Smiley on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 02:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, the Youth did NOT Vote (none / 0)

I don't understand you numbers.

If the national turnout for 18-29 was 52%, and the national turnout for 18-24 was only ten 10% then....hmm...let me see...(scribbles)...

Wow, um, no, that's not mathematically possible.

So, are you worried that 18-24 year olds only made up 10% of the electorate? 'Cause if.....hmmm....that....(scribbles).....means......an average of .014 and .016 of electorate per year respectively.

I'm not sure if those are despicable turnouts or not (wouldn't population come into play?), but I do know that there wasn't much of a difference between the two.

Lesson for the day: (courtesy of Mark Twain)

There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Jenny's caveat: If you are going to pick apart the last, it really helps to know what the numbers represent.

by jennyk on Sun Nov 07, 2004 at 12:11:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.