POLITICS JULY 7, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Young voters played a crucial role in Barack Obama’s successful campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. In state after state, exit polls showed that Obama received his strongest support from voters under the age of 30. Now that he has clinched the Democratic nomination, Obama is counting on strong support from under-thirties to offset John McCain’s expected advantage among older white voters, some of whom continue to be uneasy about the prospect of an African American president.
Recent polling data suggest that younger voters are poised to turn out and vote for Barack Obama in very large numbers. According to a recent Gallup Poll analysis, in mid-June Obama held a relatively narrow five point lead over John McCain among all registered voters. Among 18-29 year-olds, however, Obama held an enormous 27 point lead, 59 percent to 32 percent. Obama’s support among younger voters was largely responsible for his overall lead in the poll.
Barack Obama clearly has a special ability to connect with younger Americans. For many young people, Obama, like John F. Kennedy in 1960, represents a new generation of leaders not associated with the controversies and failures of the past. It is also much easier for many young people to identify with the 46-year-old Obama, who casually references Jay-Z lyrics on the stump, than the 71-year-old McCain, who has admitted to not knowing how to use a computer. But the strong support that Barack Obama is receiving from younger Americans is not a new development in American politics. It is a continuation of a trend that has been underway since the 2000 election.
Eight years ago, Americans under the age of 30 were almost indistinguishable from their elders in their candidate preferences. According to the 2000 national exit poll, Al Gore received 51 percent of the vote among those under the age of 30 versus 50 percent among those 30 and older. By 2004, however, a generation gap was evident. The national exit poll showed John Kerry receiving 54 percent of the under-30 vote versus 47 percent among those 30 and older. In congressional races in 2006, the gap was slightly larger. According to the national exit poll, Democratic House candidates received 61 percent of the 18-29 vote versus 53 percent among their elders.
The increasingly Democratic voting tendencies of younger Americans have been accompanied by a shift in their party loyalties. According to the exit poll data, the percentage of voters under the age of 30 identifying with the Democratic Party rose from 39 percent in 2000 to 43 percent in 2006, while the percentage identifying with the Republican Party fell from 37 percent in 2000 to 31 percent in 2006. In six years, a two-point Democratic advantage had grown to twelve points. In contrast, among older voters, Democratic identification fell from 41 percent to 37 percent between 2000 and 2006 while Republican identification remained unchanged at 36 percent. Although all age groups showed an increase in Democratic voting in 2006, only those under the age of 30 showed an increase in Democratic identification--a possible sign of a long-term realignment.
Today, Americans under the age of 30 are by far the most Democratic age group in the electorate. They are also by far the most liberal age group. In the 2006 national exit poll, self-identified liberals outnumbered self-identified conservatives 34 percent to 25 percent. In contrast, self-identified conservatives outnumbered self-identified liberals by 33 percent to 18 percent among those 30 and older.
It’s not just the liberal label that young Americans are embracing. The 2004 National Election Study indicates that on a variety of specific policy issues, Americans under the age of 30 are considerably more liberal than older Americans. One would expect younger Americans to more liberal than older Americans on cultural issues such as gay marriage--and they are (fifty percent of those under the age of 30 favored permitting gay marriage compared with only 30 percent of those 30 and older). However, some of the largest differences between younger and older NES respondents were on questions involving the role of the federal government in domestic affairs; 63 percent of those under the age of 30 wanted the government to provide more services even if it required higher taxes, and 57 percent wanted the federal government to have the primary responsibility for providing health care in the United States. In contrast, those figures were 47 and 44 percent, respectively, for voters over the age of 30.
It is sometimes assumed that liberalism among the young is largely the province of the educated elite--that it is most prevalent among college students and those who have recently graduated from college. But the 2006 National Exit Poll indicates that this assumption is not correct. Among young voters today, liberalism and support for the Democratic Party are actually strongest among those who have not been to college. Sixty-eight percent of those under the age of 30 with only a high school education voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2006 compared with 56 percent of those with some college and 57 percent of college graduates. Similarly, among voters under the age of 30 with only a high school education, self-identified liberals outnumbered self-identified conservatives by 43 percent to 21 percent; among those with some college the ratio was only 33 percent to 25 percent; among college graduates it was only 32 percent to 28 percent.
What explains support for the Democratic Party and liberalism among younger Americans today? One likely explanation is that Americans under the age of 30 have come of age politically during the George W. Bush presidency. The political attitudes of younger citizens are generally influenced much more than those of older citizens by recent events. Just as the political attitudes of an earlier generation of Americans were shaped by the Great Depression and the New Deal, the political attitudes of the current under-30 generation have been shaped by the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, and economic stagnation. It is no exaggeration to say that the Bush presidency has given both conservatism and the Republican Party a bad name among younger Americans.
There is no guarantee that the current Democratic advantage among younger Americans will last beyond 2008. It was Roosevelt’s New Deal more than the Great Depression that caused many young people during the 1930s to become lifelong Democrats. Discontent with the leadership and policies of George Bush will not turn the current generation of young people into lifelong Democrats. Whether Democrats can turn their temporary advantage into a long-term advantage--one that could help them to solidify their position as the majority party in the U.S. for decades to come--will depend on whether the next Democratic president and Congress can actually deliver the kinds of changes that most Americans, and especially most younger Americans, want including ending the war in Iraq, reforming health care, expanding economic opportunity, protecting the environment, and above all restoring faith in the fairness and competence of government as an institution.
Alan I. Abramowitz is a professor of political science at Emory University.
By Alan I. Abramowitz
30 comments
I'd love to agree with you about this looming Liberal generation. But - generally speaking - younger voters always vote on the left and gravitate towards the right as they get older, have kids and pay taxes. I am reminded of a quote said to be uttered by Winston Churchill: "Anyone who isn’t a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn’t a conservative by age 40 has no brain."
- JC
July 7, 2008 at 10:15am
Churchill aside, that's not what Abramowitz is saying. He's saying that the young voters of only 8 years ago were trending conservative and that they are now trending liberal. That's a huge change. My own 25-year-old daughter, pre-Obama, said she felt voting was useless, that the government couldn't do anything (which dismayed me no end at the time). She had come to believe the Republican claptrap about the ineffectiveness of government and of popular political action. Now she believes the government can help people and is gung-ho Obama. The right-wing grip on the zeitgiest is loosening.
- RA
July 7, 2008 at 11:09am
Interestly enough, the push on Obama's MySpace site criticizing him for his FISA stance got some air time on MSNBC this morning... Of course then the usual bobble-headed crap was pulled out again. Obama needs to pull away from the "radical left" and go to the "center" to capture the "moderate centrists". I hope this election cycle Obama listens to his base who are part of the majority in this country who want an end to the war in Iraq and don't want more Government secret spying on their phones and emails. So far it doesn't look good...
- wagonjak
July 7, 2008 at 11:54am
I wonder how this maps racially. In other words, are young voters increasingly less white than older voters? If so how much of the trend is racial, rather than generational? Second, since older citizens vote in higher percentages than younger ones, even with the increase in youth participation, doesn't the increased conservatism of the more activist older cohort offset the increased liberalism of the younger one? what am I missing here?
- Linda Hirshman
July 7, 2008 at 12:05pm
Complete crap. Young college types ALWAYS trended towards the hippy-dippy left due to a variety of factors - indoctrination by universities, inexperience with reality (never having paid taxes or given a thought about the price of freedom), the cool tie-dye t-shirts, their rebellious nature, etc. How many "student" protests throughout the world have been for the status quo? (outside of the anti-American ones staged by iranian mullahs.)
- JWL2672
July 7, 2008 at 12:17pm
The political climate has always been like the economy, with waves of peaks and troughs. The ruling party will always lose support for some reason or other. Unless there are rainbows and lollipops in the sky, whatever negative happens during their reign is always attributed to them. I'm fat and out of shape? Hell it's Bush's fault. Gas is $4/gallon? It's Bush' fault for invadiing Iraq. I was in the gym the other day talking to someone about politics and their lack of knowledge on the subject amazed me. Their grasp of economics and world affairs was nil and yet their conviction of the evils of Bush and all that should be attributed to him was absolute. 95% of the electorate are dumbasses. On either side.
- JWL2672
July 7, 2008 at 12:26pm
While I know it's always convenient to blame Bush for well...everything, I think it has more to do with the constant propaganda that passes for public education these days that has swung younger voters. From the time they enter grade school they've had to endure the same old tired liberal dogma from teachers, themselves raised on the same memes. Congratulations, you've managed to indoctrinate, vice educate an entire generation. You must be proud.
- Mike
July 7, 2008 at 12:33pm
"It isn't just that young voters like Obama--more importantly, over the last eight years, they've come to believe in liberalism." Or maybe the not-really-all-that-conservative GWB has ruined the conservative brand over the past eight years, especially among those whose political sensibilities do not predate his administration. As Abramowitz himself states, before GWB, the age bracket percentages were roughly similar. But when the self-proclaimed standard-bearer of one group has so obviously failed, ANYTHING the other side says is going to sound better; again, especially to those who have no prior experience. Hence, the general trending toward liberalism. However, let these political naifs experience some failed policies of the Obama administration (and they will - no administration, no ideology, is perfect) and these numbers will go back to a more even balance.
- dhauck
July 7, 2008 at 12:42pm
Fascinating, RA. Does she have examples? Does she pay taxes? Does she have children? Does she make any distinction between local, state and federal gov't in her assertion that gov't "can" help people? Damn, I always wanted a grip on the zeitgeist.
- butchie b
July 7, 2008 at 1:26pm
The comment about liberalism and conservatism being a product of age is both wrong and attributed to the wrong country's prime minister. It was Aristide Briand, the French prime minister during WWI who made that statement, not Churchill. But more importantly there is no evidence in any survey research ever done to support the notion that so many think is true. In fact, in 2004 the only two age groups to support John Kerry over George Bush were the very youngest, Millennials, and the very oldest generation--FDR'S GIs. But the survey data that Abramowitz cites is true--and even more so if you take the "cuspers," those people born in the final years of Generation X (between 26 and 30), out of the data and look at just Millennial generation voters (18-26)alone. However, we point out in our book, Millennial Makeover, George Bush deserves very little of the credit Abramowitz gives him for this change. Instead the powerful forces of generational change brought about by how these young people were raised, combined with the emergence of a new communication technology, Internet-based social networks, have brought Democrats this potential bonanza. As Ambramowitz correctly points out, the allegiance of Millennials to the Democratic party is not yet a done deal, but with the right message and the right messenger in this campaign, the Democrats have a chance to solidify a partisan advantage for decades.
- winograd
July 7, 2008 at 1:30pm
The problem for conservatives is that Dubya governed as an FDR/LBJ liberal but did it under the conservative banner. War, spending, Fed money printing/inflation etc, are eau de liberal but were done by a labeled conservative so they get the bad rap. Being charismatic and speaking of hope and change, while coming along after the mess your predecessor has created with liberal policies(whether he calls himself Dem or GOP) is what wins. Since FDR there has never really been a conservative president(read smaller government, less spending, no war-making/provoking)and that includes Reagan and Nixon(who was a bigger welfare-stater than LBJ). Every four years we get the illusion of choice. I now fully expect Obama to become Obomba regarding Iran.
- lesserliz
July 7, 2008 at 1:35pm
I don't think the shift to conservatism that comes with age has much to do with intelligence. As people grow older, they tend to cling to ideas that were popular in their youth. But the definition of being socially liberal or conservative has changed with each generation. The larger trend is towards a more progressive society. These last 30 years of conservative backlash were an aberration- not evidence of any lasting support.
- Tim
July 7, 2008 at 1:38pm
RA - Ah, but is her coming around to your way of thinking really a shift from a genuine position or an ad hoc posture taken on for the sake of rebellion?
- HellifIknow
July 7, 2008 at 2:22pm
The 28 year old self-employed, upper middle class daughter of a friend of mine recently told me that she is voting for Obama because she likes him, can't stand Bush, wants to raise taxes on the rich and thinks McCain is too old. She said that's how her generation thinks. I reminded her that most of her customers are `rich', that Bush isn't running and Obama is too young and inexperienced. I also reminded her that when MY generation was her age we too hated our president, Lyndon Johnson, as much as her generation hates Bush; and that we were and still are in favor of peace and love. We just think that presidents should be selected differently than winners on Dancing with the Stars or American Idol. I think she will still vote for Obama. But she's getting married and hopefully will have children. I think I see a 2012 Republican
- Bob
July 7, 2008 at 2:22pm
When you 25 year-old daughters, realizes, that government can't and shouldn't do everything. She will return!
- fred
July 7, 2008 at 2:34pm
The old canard tegarding Churchill's quote keeps getting repeated, mostly by Republicans. The actual quote is "...anyone who hasn't turn establishment by age 40 has no brains." Most people consider themselves to be part of the so-called establishment by the time they reach middle age, mostly due to societal factors that reward conformity. This has little to do with conservatism vs. liberalism.
- Skye
July 7, 2008 at 2:53pm
Churchill is unlikely to have said, "Anyone who isn't a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn't a conservative by age 40 has no brain," seeing that he himself was a Conservative (in both senses) at the age of 20 and a Liberal (in both senses) at the age of 40, and he only re-ratted (his own word) to the Conservatives because the Liberal Party was dying off. Anyone who says "Young college types ALWAYS trended towards the hippy-dippy left" sure wasn't around in the 1980s when Reaganism was even more in fashion on campus than elsewhere.
- Kalimac
July 7, 2008 at 4:08pm
A conservative is a liberal that got smacked in the face by reality. It sometimes does take a 9/11 or a mugging for a lefty to become a hardcore Republican. Pretty hard to stay idealistic about how the world SHOULD be instead of how the world really IS. On a personal note, as I stood on the subway platform waiting for an uptown train yesterday, a bunch of stupid punks were on a downtown train shoving their crotches on the windows, pulling down their pants, and pretend-masturbating at me. Uh-huh, I really want my hard-earned tax dollars to go to supporting people like that and their illegitmate bastard children.
- JWL2672
July 7, 2008 at 5:11pm
Maybe I'm a little too old to be the subject demographic -- I'm 31 -- but I see the phenom loud and clear. I would also like to rebut some of the comments on the thread -- that liberalism is the refuge of the young and naive, that students are somehow "indoctrinated" by liberal universities. At least personally, I was completely a-political through undergrad and the 2000 election. Once I started paying attention, though, I was alarmed and depressed. I think Bush has been a historically bad president. But not everything (maybe even most things) can't be blamed on him. It goes beyond Bush. It's Delay and Abramhoff, the K-State project, the complete selling of American interests by republicans to industry (see energy policy, global warming, etc.), the inability of republicans to treat health care in any serious way, the U.S. attorney scandal, the complete politization of everything to a degree beyond what it even was in the 1990s. I could go on. I also think do think there is a generational and demographic issue going on. I'm not naive enough to think electing Obama is going to turn everything around. But I've seen what 8 years of a republican president have done (6 with a republican congress), and it isn't good. May I end up being an R in 4 or 8 or 12 years? Maybe. The Dems seem to have a history of disappointing. But I also have a kid and pay a lot of taxes. And if you ask me straight out, my honest answer in considering all the facts, is that my son's future is a little bit brighter with Obama as president.
- funkyhh
July 7, 2008 at 5:21pm
Bob: You claim that Obama doesn't have experience. OK, let's analyze McCain, shall we? His ONE executive experience with anything approaching the organizational behemoth that is the federal government has been his presidential campaign which he has managed to run extraordinarily poorly. From multiple managerial shakeups to his "Lobbyists are bad but are running my campaign" snafu to relatively weak fundraising to conservatives threatening to derail HIS party platform, how is anything he has done during this campaign supposed to make me feel good about him being a good leader? Mr. "No Experience" has managed to defeat one of the most experienced political machines in recent American history, has raised inordinate sums of money, and has a well-funded operation in every state in the Union.
- Pierre
July 7, 2008 at 6:15pm
I think Professor Abramowitz's thesis is completely valid. It's not that young voters are liberal because they're young, they're liberal because GWB is such an appalling failure as a president. We had a similar situation here in Australia where an unpopular prime minister was up for re-election back in 1982. The saying at the time was that a drover's dog could beat that guy. After that election the Labor Party was in power for 16 years and it took a whole new generation to elect a Coalition (conservative) government. I think your political situation is similar.
- Geoff
July 7, 2008 at 7:08pm
I don't agree at all with the first poster at all. I was young in the early '80's when everything was Reagan, Reagan, and more Reagan. Many of my peers from those times are still conservative and still convinced that Reagan was the greatest President ever. Indeed, the GOP in the House is dominated by 40-somethings of that era.
- mlp
July 7, 2008 at 10:27pm
JWL2672, your conventional wisdom regarding the young traditionally skewing left misses the point--the point is, 8 years ago they were skewing right, and now they are skewing left. That's called a "change", and has nothing to do with the so-called conventional wisdom regarding youth and politics. Please read more carefully before commenting.
- Brian
July 7, 2008 at 10:33pm
JWL..... Actually, gas at $4.00 a gallon IS Bush's fault. Political instability only pushes up the future value of other's oil (speculation) and the budget deficit and Iraq war debt all conspire to lower the value of the dollar. Oil is priced in dollars and our dollars ain't worth shit right now thanks to W and Dick's adventures in the Middle East. All the sabre-rattling at Iran combined with the fact that civil war/revolution has taken Nigeria and Iraq off-line for oil production has combined to produce a price boom for all the countries that hate our guts right now....Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc.
-
July 8, 2008 at 10:07am
Sorry, my last post (#24) didn't include a name. I'm surprised it got through. World events affect the price of oil probably more than any other commodity. Oil, in turn, affects virtually every other commodity, especially food and housing. So lay the blame for the disaster where it belongs, at W's feet. That's why the youngins are turning liberal again. The draft did it in the 60s and Clueless George's quest for total power is doing it now
- desertdog
July 8, 2008 at 2:55pm
I can only speak for myself. Bush turned me from a moderate into a solid liberal and I was born in the 60s so I'm no college kid.
- stgla
July 8, 2008 at 5:40pm
The Bush Administration has been so inept at management, and so lock-step conservative, that it's going to turn off the young. The GOP is devoid of any new ideas, and instead offers right-wing scare tactics, whether it's gay-bashing or mysteriously upping the threat level prior to every election. Ever think young people might have more time to spend thinking about issues than older folk? They're no fools. It's not always about "taxes," besides, it's not like your taxes have gone down lately ... !
- LAGuy
July 10, 2008 at 1:47pm
LAGuy, I don't know if the Bush administration is so much inept as they are looking out for their self-interest. Its not that they can't push to develop viable alternatives to oil or reduce the stranglehold of HMOs on medicine or better regulate credit card companies. Its that their interests lie in NOT doing those things, because they're in the pockets of Big Business. I used to think Bush was inept, but now I think he's just looking out for number one.
- Drang
July 10, 2008 at 5:26pm
The liberal trending among the 18-30 vote has more to do with growing up post-Cold War, post-Reagan and in the midst of the Clinton years than some reflexive anti-Bush view. Beyond that, I challenge you to find me ANY presidential election in which the 18-30 vote actually mattered, no offense to our younger brethren. They traditionally vote liberal, and they notoriously undervote compared to other age and demo groups. Trumpeting Obama's lock on the youth vote is like trumpeting his lock on the African-American vote. Duh. We kinda knew that already, Al.
- RickBrownell
July 12, 2008 at 11:02am
Young Americans make your voice heard on November 4, 2008. It's your future, John McCain is an old rich politician. Barack Obama is young, progressive, cares about education, affordable health care, making the future better for everyone. Elect Barack Obama President. Pass it on. Obama/Biden 08 CHANGE WE NEED
- michelle
September 21, 2008 at 3:10am