After seventeen months of campaigning, with five grueling months of primaries and caucuses, the Democratic nominating contest came to a close Tuesday when Barack Obama attained enough pledged delegates and super delegates to clinch the nomination. Hillary Clinton's non-concession speech notwithstanding, Obama's coalition of young voters, independents, African Americans, and what Chris Bowers calls "creative class" Democrats proved stronger than Clinton's older Democratic coalition. Obama is the nominee and, in the best possible world, will move on to become the next President of the United States.

This was an historic campaign on any number of levels-- not least because of the glass ceilings that both major candidates breached with their impressive campaigns and photo-finish. It was also an historic campaign for young people, who emerged as major players in the race after over-performing in the Iowa caucus and providing Obama with the boost he needed to win the nomination. While race and gender divided the Boomers and alienated Democrats, such culture-war issues played little role in the decisions of young voters at the ballot box. Instead, Millennials of all race and ethnicities--men and women--voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama, making age one of the most accurate predictors of support in the race.

Obama's victory is our victory. Young voters walked precincts in the heat and snow for him. We caucused and cast our ballots. We contributed what we could and helped to out-raise one of the most impressive money-machines in Democratic politics. We designed posters and made videos. We recruited our social networks via Facebook and MySpace, and convinced our parents to switch their votes. In some states, like Iowa, we were the difference that pushed Obama over the edge. In others, we were part of a coalition that contributed to victory or kept the Senator competitive when he might otherwise have lost by a large margin. Senator Obama's nomination is the coming of age of a new generation in progressive politics, and here are just some of our credentials (from Rock the Vote:

--Over 6 million young people cast their ballots in this primary contest, more than double the turnout from 2004 or 2000 (the comparable years for Democrats and Republicans, respectively).

Young people greatly increased their "share of the electorate" and were the driving force behind rising turnout.

--Young people voted Democratic more than 2 - 1.

--4.9 million young voters cast their ballot for a Democratic candidate.

--Within the Democratic primary, young voters increased their share of the electorate from 9.4% in 2004 to 14.3% in 2008.

--With just a few exceptions, the media narrative has reversed. Whereas five months ago the youth vote barely registered on anyone's radar (except perhaps to mock Obama's strategy as a fool's errand), it is now regularly praised in the mainstream media. Time Magazine labeled 2008 the Year of the Youth Vote, and Business Week reported on the growing "YouthQuake."

This is only the beginning. The youth vote has increased in every major election since 2004 and by every indicator this is a trend which will continue.

Thanks to the long primary season, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns contacted and registered new voters in every single state in the nation. Many of those new voters were under the age of 30. Combined with Obama's youth fellowship program and 50-state voter registration strategy, which will continue through the fall, and Howard Dean's own 50 state strategy, youth participation in the Democratic Party will grow by leaps and bounds over 2004.

But the DNC isn't alone. This summer and fall they will be joined by outside efforts conducted by partisan and non-partisan youth organizations alike. These groups - such as Rock the Vote, the New Voters Project, the Young Democrats, the Bus Federation, Swing Semester, and The League--will register over 1 million new voters online and make hundreds of thousands of contacts in the field. They will conduct non-traditional outreach to under-served groups that most campaigns miss, and they will put a cultural spin on political action that could turn new voters into life long activists.

Also driving increased turnout the rise of the Millennials, a highly progressive, civic-minded generation that believes in the importance of being engaged, their own power to effect change, and the suitability of government as a vehicle to make that change a reality. With their preferred candidate now leading the Democratic ticket, amidst a poisonous political climate that has set the country at odds with their progressive values, there seems little chance that the trends of the last four years will suddenly and unexpectedly reverse course.

Turnout will likely rise across the board this year. The voter registration numbers so far virtually guarantee it. But if trends hold, it will be up the most among Millennials, not just to the benefit of Obama, but to hundreds of candidates down ballot in close races where a few hundred new young voters can tip the balance. The youth vote is at a crossroads. There are challenges ahead to be sure, and nothing is guaranteed, but if things continue along this path, the youth vote stands ready to finally fulfill its promise-- first looked for in 1971 with the passage of the 26th Amendment.

Comments (49)

1. After just turning 31, I suppose I have to stop the denial that I am no longer part of the "youth movement". However I have seen the turnouts at campuses and college towns all over, and it is to be reckoned with. In order for this movement to have any impact at all, unlike the fizzled attempts at youth voting blocs of the past decades, these kids have to show up in November. Excitement and spirit in the primaries is great, and the numbers show there was an impact, but without the turnout in the general, this will be yet another empty attempt to tout the youth as a political force.

   Posted by davefoley0 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:16am

2. if the youtts show up on primary day, what makes anyone think they won't show up on election day?

   primaries are much less attended than elections

   the above is not a typo. it is a tribute to "my cousin Vinnie" and the immortal Fred Gwynne

   Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 11:33am

3. Then the angel left.

   Posted by mihnea

   For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged.

   Matt 7:2

   Posted by abell12ct at 06/05/2008 @ 12:00pm

4. Hopefully the youth now see that they do indeed have the potential to change their world.....and are pissed off enough to want to do so.

   Posted by leftofcenter at 06/05/2008 @ 12:37pm

5. Do the crazy mythologies of delusional believers have anything to do with the youth vote? Just curious.

   Posted by davefoley0 at 06/05/2008 @ 1:04pm

6. Where's Mask and Jom to come and say the youth doesn't matter?

   Honestly for those of you who say that the youth vote doesn't matter at all. Imagine if the youth as a whole started voting Republican. The youth vote no matter what their numbers makes up a large portion of Democratic votes. So it in fact does matter. There are degrees to which you have to gauge something it is not black and white. Mask and Jom think the youth vote has not guaranteed constant wins therefore it doesn't matter. However neither has any vote. Every vote is a portion of a whole. No one constituency swings it but a higher turn out from one in combination with the others can push things in the right direction.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 1:18pm

7. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/5/2008

   I won't say that.

   I'll say that it HASN'T mattered in the past (despite similar claims from its proponents).

   I'll also say that I'll be HAPPY (no, not him) to see it matter THIS election, if it can...and be proven demographically to have significantly helped Obama get elected in November.

   Nothing would please me more.

   If it doesn't happen though...it wouldn't suprise me more.

   Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 1:57pm

8. I'll say that it HASN'T mattered in the past (despite similar claims from its proponents).

   Posted by Mask at 06/5/2008

   But I contend that it HAS mattered in the past. Imagine if all the youth vote that Democrats get swung Republican. What do you think the affect would be?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 2:31pm

9. Imagine if all the youth vote that Democrats get swung Republican. What do you think the affect would be?----Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/5/2008 |

   Well, let's see...

   Nixon in '68

   Nixon in '72

   Carter in '76 via Watergate, running as a Southern moderate, and long after the hippies had turned to disco and coke.

   Reagan in '80

   Reagan in '84

   Bush-41 in '88

   Clinton in 1992, 1996....Clinton basically won on Ross Perot (nobody denies that). He won re-election because the Repubs ran the "first John McCain" (Dole) and because he tacked Center after the '94 Congressionals.

   Neither case showed much of the "progressive" youth vote, do you think?

   Bush-43 in '00

   Bush-43 in '04

   Okay...how's your case?

   Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 3:36pm

10. Damn Time Warps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    (Shatner in "Wrath of Khan" impersonation)

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 3:36pm

11. The problem is not setting the politics of they young. The issue is them putting up or shutting up. I totally agree, they came out very well for the primaries, but that's just the semi-finals. The fact is they need to show up for the general election period. Youth is wasted on the young. Hopefully they won't waste the chance to directly affect their future.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 4:13pm

12. Ah one of the problems with youth is that they lack maturity. With the wonderful things about being young, so many lack both wisdom and knowledge.

    There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of youth vote that Obama has garnered to date has centered around the "Star" factor and his Charismatic speaking abilities.

    It is very similar to the way Clinton used his personality and charm to garner the women's vote.

    I still maintain that there should be a basic test on Constitutional knowledge, current events, and economics before allowing anyone to vote for president.

    Before the lefties scream discrimination, it would be perfectly constitutional since there is currently no constitutional provision for voting for president.

    If that excludes some conservatives, I am fine with that. I want informed people making this choice.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/05/2008 @ 4:23pm

13. Any time you argue for curtailing the right to vote you apply some arbitrary and easily manipulated standard. It is way too easy to politically motivate this "test" to give your own party an advantage. And I don't want some old man in some government office somewhere telling me I can't vote because I didn't pas some arbitrary test. The burden for curbing votings rights is high for a reason: because a true representative republic is a farce without maximum inclusion. Never mind the fact you're advocating the expansion of the government just to increase your comfort level in who should and should not vote. But your authoritarian streak is rather obvious LVL.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 5:40pm

14. I have a better idea, why not offer some freebies to the kids? Both parties should give out the following free items...

    3G iPhones Latest Air Jordans $500 American Express Gift Cards Blackberry Curve 8310 Tony Hawk Limited Edition Sidekick LX Canon HF10 (16GB of internal memory) Laptop (Dell, IBM ThinkPad, HP, Sony..) Latest video games

    So, by offering a small token of appreciation to our young people, they will come to embrace the democratic process and vote for the next president of the United States...(snicker)

    Posted by ACook at 06/05/2008 @ 6:10pm

15. I still maintain that there should be a basic test on Constitutional knowledge, current events, and economics before allowing anyone to vote for president.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008

    Too bad that is against the Constitution but it's a nice though. You know the whole part of putting road blocks in the way of voting. I forget the exact phrase but it is the same argument against a voting ID.

    "If that excludes some conservatives, I am fine with that. I want informed people making this choice."

    I think it would exclude almost an equal amount of conservatives and liberals not just some. I know you think you are superior to us but I gurantee you many of the people who are on the impoverished less educated side of the right know just as little as the impoverished less educated left. Despite the fact that you think the right is genetically superior to the left somehow I contend that we have an equal amount of idiots and uninformed on both sides. So many voters are single issue voters. The right has it's people who vote on anti-abortion the left has it's pro-abortion voters and beyond that they know no other issues.

    However requiring tests to vote is the first step toward totalitarianism because the test is arbitrary and they can keep adding more and more roadblocks to filter out the voters they don't want. I am sure the only people you consider to be current on the issues, knowledgeable in the Constitution and economics are the people which agree with you. Since you can say that if a person doesn't think a certain way about an issue then they don't understand it therefore they shouldn't be allowed to vote. That is why you can't impede peoples right to vote with tests. I'd think you would you know that.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:15pm

16. I have a better idea, why not offer some freebies to the kids? Both parties should give out the following free items...

    3G iPhones Latest Air Jordans $500 American Express Gift Cards Blackberry Curve 8310 Tony Hawk Limited Edition Sidekick LX Canon HF10 (16GB of internal memory) Laptop (Dell, IBM ThinkPad, HP, Sony..) Latest video games

    So, by offering a small token of appreciation to our young people, they will come to embrace the democratic process and vote for the next president of the United States...(snicker)

    Posted by ACook at 06/5/2008

    That's genius. We need to put this plan into action.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:17pm

17. You made the wrong choice of computer though ACook. You have to offer them Mac's. That's what is popular right now.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:17pm

18. Did they show up to the primaries? Or did they just show up to the cacuses? I thought Hillary won the primaries and Obama won the cacuses.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/5/2008

    If you believe what Hillary says then Obama ONLY won caucuses because the youth and those damn black people keep showing up to vote.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:19pm

19. Okay...how's your case?

    Posted by Mask at 06/5/2008

    Is that what would happen if the youth vote swung Republican?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:21pm

20. you arrogant twit. you're telling me right wingers are better informed. you must be joking. I have posted here for years and I can attest to the opposite, you included.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008

    He doesn't mean better informed, he means they agree with him.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 7:37pm

21. You made the wrong choice of computer though ACook. You have to offer them Mac's. That's what is popular right now.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/5/2008

    Oh, I didn't know. My husband and my youngest have IBM ThinkPads. I try to kept up with the lastest gadgets, but with a teenaged son on the loose, it's kinda difficult getting info out of him when he's not running around with his buddies, playing basketball, chasing girls or playing video games.

    Posted by ACook at 06/05/2008 @ 8:20pm

22. We had to have dinner as a family once a week, especially when my dad was out to sea. Since it wasn't ofen, it was a fantastic time to catch up and for Mom to nail us down and make sure we weren't messing up too much. But I missed the whole Mac thing too, mainly because I hate them with a passion. I've advocated for a voting day holiday for a long time now, giving folks the day off since it has to be a Tuesday. It doesn't seem like so radical a notion, folks don't have to try and cram voting into their schedules.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 8:56pm

23. Is that what would happen if the youth vote swung Republican?----Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/5/2008

    CCC, if the "youth vote" can break Democrat OR Republican...then it's a non-factor, since it is nothing more than another "Swing Demographic".

    And that's not the theory put out by folks like Mr Connery, Cora Currier, Peter Rothberg, etc. They posit the "youth vote" is (and always remains) "progressive".

    Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 8:57pm

24. If I were young, I think I'd show up to the Democrat cacuses because all young female Democrats are slutty whores and it'd be real easy to score.

    Posted by marybretbrad

    hey,

    mccain should become a democrat!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 9:29pm

25. I still maintain that there should be a basic test on Constitutional knowledge, current events, and economics before allowing anyone to vote for president.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    forget the voters!

    make the candidates take the test.

    mccain fails.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 9:31pm

26. Before the lefties scream discrimination, it would be perfectly constitutional since there is currently no constitutional provision for voting for president.

    Posted by lvliberty1

    how dandy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 9:32pm

27. you arrogant twit. you're telling me right wingers are better informed. you must be joking. I have posted here for years and I can attest to the opposite, you included.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008

    Do you bother to read JR, or just blather and make yourself look silly?

    "Before the lefties scream discrimination, it would be perfectly constitutional since there is currently no constitutional provision for voting for president.

    If that excludes some conservatives, I am fine with that. I want informed people making this choice.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008"

    Is there anything there that states that conservatives are better informed than liberals?

    Many are but that is not relevant to the point of your typical false accusation.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/05/2008 @ 10:56pm

28. informed by whom?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 11:01pm

29. And for those like CCC suggesting that my proposal is unconstitutional, you are wrong. You would be correct if I had stated that my proposal also applied to voting for members of Congress. However, as I have often pointed out, there is no right to vote for president of the US in our constitution.

    A little knowledge of history would reveal that my statements are exactly inline with that of our founders and the reason why they created the electoral college.

    "The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

    The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

    It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

    Federalist 68

    Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others."

    http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:01pm

30. Wait...where in that does it say that any restrictions on selecting the electors is Constitutional? It's in fact not relevant to your discussion, which is direct restriction of the right to vote (which affects Congressional and other elections) rather than the process of why there is an Electoral College (only one of which could be argued to be relevant today). The Electoral College was created when there was no public education and who could vote was far fewer than today. The expansion of suffrage is one of the greatest advancements of Western civilization, to suggest any contraction is ludicrous.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/05/2008 @ 11:30pm

31. Wait...where in that does it say that any restrictions on selecting the electors is Constitutional? It's in fact not relevant to your discussion, which is direct restriction of the right to vote (which affects Congressional and other elections) rather than the process of why there is an Electoral College (only one of which could be argued to be relevant today). The Electoral College was created when there was no public education and who could vote was far fewer than today. The expansion of suffrage is one of the greatest advancements of Western civilization, to suggest any contraction is ludicrous.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/5/2008

    It doesn't effect Congressional elections because I would put the presidential candidates on a seperate ballot if any at all. I have no problem reverting back to our Constitutions intent, by letting the only voting for president by done by the electoral college, with the states choosing electors in accordance with the founders intents.

    Presidents should not be voted for because of their brilliance in public speaking or their charm, nor because of the failure of ignorant voters to understand the issues and how they relate to our constitutional republic.

    I have equal disdain for conservative or liberal voters who are ignorant of the constitution, the enumerated powers given to each branch of the Federal Government, and the the overwhelming power that has been usurped by the Fed actually belongs constitutionally to the individual states.

    Hamilton and the Founders were wise beyond their years in setting up our Constitution to try and prevent the kind of electoral sophistry we experience now.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:43pm

32. And the Founders' intent for selecting the electors was...what, exactly? It punts that decision to the states, who have all selected a popular vote. So you're arguing for a federal intervention for a state's rights issues. Man make up your mind, are you a conservative or just a hack?

    Posted by yutsano at 06/06/2008 @ 12:42am

33. And the Founders' intent for selecting the electors was...what, exactly? It punts that decision to the states, who have all selected a popular vote. So you're arguing for a federal intervention for a state's rights issues. Man make up your mind, are you a conservative or just a hack?

    Posted by yutsano at 06/6/2008

    Granted, I cannot control the method of the states, hence my recommendation. The results of past elections demonstrates that the states have made a poor decision by selecting a popular vote.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/06/2008 @ 09:56am

34. Or the states have opted for the most democratic (ooh scary word for you I know!) method for choosing their electors. The vast majority are all or nothing, which isn't necessarily proportional representation. Yet no state has opted for any sort of "test" to allow people to vote. Why do you suppose that is?

    Posted by yutsano at 06/06/2008 @ 2:31pm

35. "And for those like CCC suggesting that my proposal is unconstitutional, you are wrong. You would be correct if I had stated that my proposal also applied to voting for members of Congress. However, as I have often pointed out, there is no right to vote for president of the US in our constitution."

    "A little knowledge of history would reveal that my statements are exactly inline with that of our founders and the reason why they created the electoral college."

    A while we are at it, lets only let white, male, landowners vote because that's what the Founding Fathers also thought would be the best way to run elections. I know we have all those pesky amendments now that would make those ideas unconstitutional, but the Founders didn't think the poor, women or non-whites should vote, so neither should we.

    For all you...sayers of nay that doubt that the youth vote is really going to swing the country progressive, you really should read the article linked under "highly progressive" above. It gives an array of statistics from multiple sources to back-up the trend.

    Some highlights:

    *The Millennials are the biggest generation...EVER (bigger than the boomers) and we will be 30% of the electorate in 1216.

    *49% of us identify ourselves as Democrat (compared to 35% as Republican). When you compare this to Gen-X in 1991, 55% of that group identified Republican, while 33% identified as Democrat.

    *In a survey from 2007, 85% reported being interested in National Affairs.

    *A survey in 2006 found that 63% believed that the government should do more to solve problems, while only 31% thought the government does too many things better left to business and individuals.

    *A survey in 2005 found that 63% believed the role of government should be to promote policies that expand opportunity and promote prosperity for all.

    *In 2004, 57% supported multilateralism and diplomacy while only 37% supported military strength.

    *In 2005, 58% supported protecting the environment over economic growth.

    *A majority of them support gay marriage and gay adoption, while a majority of Americans overall oppose this.

    Posted by metinker at 06/06/2008 @ 2:41pm

36. All well and good, but pointless unless and until they show up at the ballot box. They can believe in fairies and unicorns too but they have to ACT and act now.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/06/2008 @ 3:00pm

37. Posted by metinker at 06/6/2008

    All your stats show is that your generation seems to be very ignorant of our constitution, enumerated powers, history, basic economics, and the role of the states according to the 10th amendment.

    Another testimony to the failure of the public education system in the US.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/06/2008 @ 5:38pm

38. Gonna bite my tongue because it's too easy. And you're not worth it anymore honestly LVL. Plus what do you care about a parchment written on 230 years ago? Your supreme law is the Bible is it not?

    Posted by yutsano at 06/06/2008 @ 6:28pm

39. "All your stats show is that your generation seems to be very ignorant of our constitution, enumerated powers, history, basic economics, and the role of the states according to the 10th amendment."

    "Another testimony to the failure of the public education system in the US."

    You can think that if you want, but either way, it still doesn't look good for Republicans. You might think that these views are wrong, but it seems obvious that the Democrats are supporting policies that are going along with the zeitgeist of the millennials. So, I don't see how the Republicans will stay in control, regardless of what YOU think is constitutional or not.

    Posted by metinker at 06/06/2008 @ 7:21pm

40. I love that LV thinks that because Millenials are trending Democrat that means they are ignorant to the issues. That is precisely why there is no test to vote. The designers would be like you LV. They would automatically say that knowledge of the issues means voting one way only. Being knowledgeable about the issues does not only entail voting Republican. Maybe there is an actual reason between the ability of people to have access to quality education and the ability to read and the increase in liberal thinking in this country. People were A LOT more conservative before they could think logically and think for themselves instead they followed group think and outdated traditions.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/06/2008 @ 7:28pm

41. Today I shared this article with my 12th grade social studies students, many of whom have already registered to vote. They were not at all surprised by the record turnout of youth voters in the primaries. First, they suggested that young people are all too aware of the tumultuous landscape in which they are living and are scared of having to clean up older generations' messes. They also agreed that the candidates' use of the internet was particularly successful in engaging potential youth voters. We discussed the rapid and wide-ranging access to information that the internet can potentially provide. Certainly young people are increasingly tech-savvy and internet-hooked, and therefore more likely to embrace political messages and information online.

    Finally, many of my students pointed out that they agreed with Mr. Connery's suggestion that their generation is less likely to find discomfort with a candidate's race or gender. They, after all, are increasingly surrounded by and used to biracial identities and empowered women...and thus, I think, more focused on the political issues.

    Regardless of ideological affiliation, I can't help but believe that young people's increased comfort (or at least tolerance) with complicated social identities does indeed make their generation more "progressive." Indeed, many young people with whom I work are comfortable engaging in uncomfortable conversations about prejudices, stereotypes and power. And this is very exciting.

    Posted by rhsmith at 06/06/2008 @ 8:04pm

42. Posted by rhsmith at 06/6/2008

    I have to agree with everything you say here. To younger people that thought of Obama being Muslim is not really a big deal. We are no immersed in completely racially integrated environments. On top of that more young people are being raised by single parents usually mothers so they are used to seeing women who are strong which means it is much less likely that they are going to carry the stigma of older generations who grew up in times where racism was outright.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/06/2008 @ 8:24pm

43. "On top of that more young people are being raised by single parents usually mothers so they are used to seeing women who are strong which means it is much less likely that they are going to carry the stigma of older generations who grew up in times where racism was outright."

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/6/2008

    Geez, man, that is so not true. These kids out here today have less morals than prior generations. They're rude, thoughtless, selfish, and want everything right now. They are the complete opposite of the greatest generation.

    Posted by ACook at 06/07/2008 @ 2:06pm

44. Hello my dear.

    Behind a melody the close of the day resembles the north wind attending a field, and this water-course appears in my mind like a delicate sadness at the height of the season: I wait for a pleasure, I dream the sunflower.

    Francesco Sinibaldi

    Posted by Sinibaldi at 06/07/2008 @ 3:37pm

45. These kids out here today have less morals than prior generations. They're rude, thoughtless, selfish, and want everything right now. They are the complete opposite of the greatest generation.

    Posted by ACook

    they've been saying this crap since the greeks.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/07/2008 @ 3:57pm

46. I love that LV thinks that because Millenials are trending Democrat that means they are ignorant to the issues. That is precisely why there is no test to vote. The designers would be like you LV. They would automatically say that knowledge of the issues means voting one way only. Being knowledgeable about the issues does not only entail voting Republican. Maybe there is an actual reason between the ability of people to have access to quality education and the ability to read and the increase in liberal thinking in this country. People were A LOT more conservative before they could think logically and think for themselves instead they followed group think and outdated traditions.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/6/2008

    Of course that is not what it means. We had a back and forth of power between the various parties in our early history.

    But CCC, what you're in reality saying is that if young people actually understood the consitution and how it functions in our Constitutional Republic, and they understood the issues of the day, they would vote Republican. I tend to agree with you..

    Sounds like you made a convincing argument on my behalf. Thank You.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/07/2008 @ 4:28pm

47. I<i> still maintain that there should be a basic test on Constitutional knowledge, </i>

    You'd flunk that in nothing flat.

    As to the constitutionality. First, the states are bound by the First Amendment. Barring voters based on their opinions as to constitutional interpretation would clearly violate that. You can claim that you only want a basic test on constitutional knowledge but that is a transparent fabrication. You are clearly aiming this at anyone who doesn't share your opinion that much of what the Federal government has done since 1932 is unconstitutional. Second, 26th amendment bars discrimination in the exercise of the franchise based on age. You are clearly aiming this at the youth vote.

    Posted by brunowe at 06/07/2008 @ 7:57pm

48. Why are we still stuck with the electoral college? Why doesn't the government trust us, "we the people", to make the call and why don't we elect a president by popular vote? I can imagine what that would do for the the interest level of the kids. I think that that would stop people like the previous attorney general from saying things like "the constitution is an arcane document". or those cute little trite phrases like "the constitution is not a suicide pact". We really need to change those who espouse monopolistic oligarchies from completely flushing the country into the septic system.

    Posted by julien38 at 06/08/2008 @ 10:10pm

49. Why are we still stuck with the electoral college? Why doesn't the government trust us, "we the people", to make the call and why don't we elect a president by popular vote? I can imagine what that would do for the the interest level of the kids. I think that that would stop people like the previous attorney general from saying things like "the constitution is an arcane document". or those cute little trite phrases like "the constitution is not a suicide pact". We really need to change those who espouse monopolistic oligarchies from completely flushing the country into the septic system. I

    Posted by julien38 at 06/08/2008 @ 10:13pm