In any conversation about the role of young voters in the political process, there are a number of arguments that - without fail - creep into the discussion. Once these myths enter the debate, any further discussion is usually rendered moot and the majority of participants tend to side with the person propagating those myths and against youth advocates. It's sort of a reverse Godwin's Law for the youth vote. It would almost be funny if it didn't have dire consequences for our movement and the Democratic Party.

So today I'd like to try to dispel some of those myths in the interest of encouraging a more hopeful (and fact-based) discussion during the rest of the month here at Passing Through.

Myth 1 - The youth never turn out. This is false. Young voters will turn out if you ask them, the problem is that the Democratic Party stopped asking a long time ago. Celebrities and media campaigns won't cut it. "Asking" requires real, peer to peer field work - the same type of work that campaigns use to target older voters. In 1992, Rock the Vote ran that field component and youth turned out for Bill Clinton. In 1996 and 2000, there was no similar field effort and youth turnout declined.

Beginning in 2004, outside organizations emerged who have taken on the responsibility of coordinating such field campaigns and we've seen the results. The youth vote has turned out in greater numbers in the last three election cycles and is growing greater with every year. In 2004 (pdf), 4.3 million more young voters (18 - 29) went to the polls than in 2000. Turnout rose from 40 percent to 49 percent. In swing states that were targeted by youth organizers, turnout was 17 percent higher than in non-targeted states. Young voters were also the only age demographic to choose John Kerry over George Bush. In 2006 (pdf), youth turnout rose during a midterm election for the first time in over 20 years. According to the latest research by Rock the Vote, youth turnout participation in the primaries has doubled since 2004.

Fact: Youth will turnout if you engage them and dedicate real campaign resources.

Myth 2 - The youth vote never won an election. In the 2006 midterm elections, young voters chose Democrats over Republicans 60 - 38 percent, and three Democratic candidates in particular owe their election to young voters. In Montana, Jon Tester ran a very YouTube-centric campaign that made an effort to reach out to young voters. He was aided by the field work of Forward Montana, an efffective local youth organization, the Minnesota Youth Coordinated Campaign, which targeted young voters, and newly implemented election day registration,which can boost youth turnout by 10 - 14 percent. Young voters increased their share of the electorate from 9 percent in 2002 to 17 percent and Tester squeaked in by a few thousand votes. (More here - pdf)

In Virginia, Jim Webb had a similar story to tell. The campaign used social networks to reach out to young voters, and had the mother of all viral videos - George Allen's "macaca moment." After Allen's on-camera gaffe, youth opinion swung dramatically in Webb's favor. Peer to peer efforts in the state by YDA in 2005 also likely boosted youth turnout which increased from 9 to 12 percent of the electorate - more than Webb's margin of victory. (More here - pdf)

And of course, we can't neglect the elephant in the room. Barack Obama has just sewn up the Democratic Party nomination and engaging young voters was a vital part of his strategy. Even more, Obama bet his entire campaign on youth-turnout in Iowa and that "gamble" paid off big. Young voters in Iowa outperformed their share of the voting population and voted in equal numbers to the "reliable senior" demographic. Without young voters and without that Iowa win, Barack Obama would not be the Democratic nominee.

Fact: Young voters won some key races in 2006 and helped flip the Senate into Democratic hands. Young voters are now responsible for nominating the first African-American presidential candidate in US history. Young voters can win elections and have done so frequently in the last 5 years.

Myth 3 - People grow more conservative as they get older. This is not strictly a myth about young voters, but it's one of those arguments that always creep their way into the debate when young voters are the topic of discussion. The fact is though that it's just not true. Partisanship is a habit that forms early in life (pdf) and is hard to break. If a person votes for a certain party in their first three major elections (during the youth vote years), 66 percent will always identify with that party and 56 percent will never cross party lines.

Fact: Youth outreach is important because partisanship rarely changes. We need to hook people while they are young.

Why is all this important? Because it is these fundamental misperceptions that continue to blind people to the power and importance of the youth vote and sustained young voter outreach. If a person believes these myths, it's very easy to dismiss the youth vote and rationalize a lack of youth outreach on the part of a campaign or political party. The Millennial generation - today's young voters - are the largest generation in American history. Bigger even than the Baby Boomers. As they age into the electorate, they will be the bedrock of a future progressive majority - in Congress, in state houses, and in the White House. But only if we engage them in the process with respect.

Comments (26)

1. Fact #1--- The "Youth Vote" has been touted since McGovern by progressives and AS a progressive bloc. McGovern lost....there's no indication it played a role in Jimmy Carter's victory in 1976....and (your example) Bill Clinton won by a PLURALITY, not majority of the vote in 1992. Everything else went to the Republicans from Nixon to Reagan (twice) to Bush-41 to Bush-43 (twice).

   BTW, if "there was no similar field effort and youth turn out declined" in 1996"....how did Clinton beat Dole?!??!?

   Fact #2--- At SOME point in the last 30 years, SOME of the "youth vote" has gotten a lot older, right? Atleast by 2000, the "youth vote" of 1972 should have been in their 50s. Yet Bush won (again twice) and the GOP held Congress until 2006, when it took a FAILED WAR, CORRUPTION, a BLOATED DEFICIT, and silliness like Terri Schiavo to get rid of them.

   Fact #--- Despite Obama's victory in the primaries, the OTHER demographics nearly beat him. Yes, he had the "youth vote" and the African-American vote...but he lost women, blue collar workers, and the rural vote to Hillary (groups he's working now to win back).

   Without the youth vote, HRC would have been the nominee. But with it, Obama still pulled off just a squeaker.

   So grant them that.

   BUT...it's going to take more than "the kids" to win it for him in November and the HISTORY of the "youth vote" from the early 70s to today, doesn't portent a great "boost" from them.

   That said, as I have always said, if it is shown demographically (by more OBJECTIVE observers) that Obama wins this November "on the youth vote"...

   I'll admit I was wrong. Until then, I'll just keep asking "former President McGovern" what he thinks of it.

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 2:58pm

2. So guess who'll get the youth vote in Nov? Surprise, surprise.

   The real suspense comes later ... what will Obama & the Dem majorities do with their power?

   So far, the indicators aren't all that encouraging for progressives.

   As CheneyBush & their owners sigh all the way to the bank, living out their lives of impunity.

   Posted by sloper at 06/09/2008 @ 3:00pm

3. Sorry Mr. Connery, but the household I grew up in was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. My folks never voted along party lines. They've always voted for the candidate whom they felt best represented their interest. Of the many things about them, they never said we had to follow in their footsteps politically. The choice was ours to make.

   Posted by ACook at 06/09/2008 @ 3:11pm

4. I'll admit I was wrong. Until then, I'll just keep asking "former President McGovern" what he thinks of it.

   Posted by Mask at 06/9/2008

   I notice Mask that you didn't acknowledge the fact that he gave you three examples of elections won with the help of the youth vote. Instead you only focus on Presidential elections you ignore Senate.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:25pm

5. I'll say what I said in another post: they need to SHOW UP. This is the time for the 18-30 age groups to really assert their political will over this country, but that means getting off the computers, video game consoles, what have you, and going to the polling places. IF that happens, watch for a major change in American politics. But they gotta do the work as much as the folks who want to get them out do.

   Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 3:30pm

6. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/9/2008

   Actually I DID mention Obama winning the nomination.

   As for the others? Congressional races, CCC. And Mr Connery is looking for what he's looking for...and finds it. He plays down "Macaca" and a Congress linked to scandal and Bush's war, and plays UP the fact that the youth vote went up a few points and claims "That's more than Webb's margin of victory, ergo it was the youth vote that won it for him!"

   As noted at the end, I'll need some OBJECTIVE data analysis. Mr Connery already has a history of "youth vote boosterism" (see his articles at MyDD) AND his book that he's working on on that same premise.

   Notice something else he LEAVES OUT ENTIRELY....Reagan won the "youth vote". Yep...demographics showed it.

   Now, given "the youth" of 1980 and 1984 were people upto 29 years old....that means that SOME of them (noted as the "youth vote") were the "youth vote in 1972, where Nixon won.

   AND given some were 18 in 1980 and 1984...they remained the "youth vote" in 1992...when Mr Connery grants them the power behind Clinton's victory in 1992.

   That's another problem...18-29 is "youth"? Does he think a high school grad or college student thinks politically the same way as a 28-29 year old working their career, maybe married with a kid or two?

   The whole thing (in my opinion, I grant) is a myth. Created by self-congratulatory folks in the 1960s who were told by their parents how "important" they were. And they decided "WE, 'kids' like us, are going to be the real power some day". Some thought it was THAT day back in '68 or '72....some still think it is "today" (with the goal line being moved from election cycle to election cycle.)

   Half became Religious Right, arrogant, condescending, moralistic or the Yuppies....half stayed true to the true faith and became the elders of today's "progressivism".

   But atleast the Right got over this group politics BELIEF that someday "18-29 year olds will be the REAL force in American politics"...with the subtle thought behind that being "Like WE SHOULD HAVE in 1972" or whatever.

   Or more simply the idea that "Someday the college kids will take over, man!"...Barry Shear's "Wild in the Streets"...without the iroony.

   Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 3:49pm

7. Is it possible that there never has been a "youth vote" problem? Perhaps the timelines are too short in measuring this. I think certain generations just vote more because they were moved to by some event in their lifetimes. So perhaps this current generation will always be active voters, quite like the "greatest generation."

   Posted by Livia38 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:21pm

8. MASK -

   You cannot deny that the turnout of younger voters is trending upwards since the 1990's.

   Posted by Hman23 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:26pm

9. As usual, Mask twists things to fit his preconceptions.

   Believe it or not, Mask, but your "Fact #1" (The Youth Voting Bloc has been wrongly touted as a permanently progressive voting bloc) is confirmed by Mr. Connery's Fact #3 that partisanship is formed early in life. Hence, young folks who voted for Reagan and the GOP in their teens and twenties continued to vote for Republicans in their 30's and 40's. Your "Fact #2" is also handled by the fact that young voters won over by the GOP in the 70's and 80's continued to vote for them in the 90's. What a shock!

   By the way, Mr. Connery never said that young voters won the '92 race for Clinton, only that the turnout was higher in '92 than in '96 and that Clinton won the youth vote. Also, I know you like to act or pretend that only one factor ever accounts for an outcome, but the real world being a tad more complicated than your rhetorical games, Clinton beat Dole for a number of reasons, including Ross Perot running a second time, Bob Dole being the GOP version of Walter Mondale, i.e., an "it's his turn/sacrificial lamb" candidate" and, most importantly, the economic turnaround from the recession of the late 80's-early 90's. How you of all people could forget the latter, I don't know, given how often you've cited the economy of the 90's as proof of the joys and wonders of Clintonian-style centrism.

   As for your second word spew, it's more of the same hacking at the same straw man that you've created. Mr. Connery does not argue that young voters are always progressive, he says that they can be won over to whichever side works for their votes (and that answers your Reagan argument, a point I posted on another thread several days ago, I might add). Mr. Connery doesn't say that the kids will be "the real power some day" but basically says we should treat them just like senior citizens and actually work at getting them to vote. And again, Mr. Connery never said granted young voters "the power behind Clinton's victory in 1992," he just said that they were targeted for turnout and did in fact turnout for Clinton.

   How about this, Mask? Get off this hobby horse of yours that you seem to have been riding since the early 1970's. If a Mation writer actually does post anything along the lines of "This marks a permanent shift in youth voter turnout rates, which will henceforth make youth the new 800-pound gorilla in the electoral arena," I promise, one of us will let you know.

   Posted by cka2nd at 06/09/2008 @ 4:35pm

10. great article. the obama campaign has shown almost unprecedented ability to mobilize all types of folks, including youth.

    naysayers naysay all you want. just vote obama.

    will he implement all the wildest progressive dreams? i doubt it, but i'm pretty sure we'll see universal health care, good, effective government, and an end to the neocon satano-aynrando REGRESSIVISM that has bankrupted the country and led us to the brink of disaster.

    rome wasn't built in a day and even in its decline saw the rise of many good leaders who at least temporarily reversed their civilization's decline.

    and who knows? perhaps our best days are yet to come.

    ah, the heretical audacity of hope!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/09/2008 @ 4:48pm

11. Sorry Mr. Connery, but the household I grew up in was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. My folks never voted along party lines. They've always voted for the candidate whom they felt best represented their interest. Of the many things about them, they never said we had to follow in their footsteps politically. The choice was ours to make.

    Posted by ACook at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    To quote from Mr. Connery's article: "Partisanship is a habit that forms early in life (pdf) and is hard to break. If a person votes for a certain party in their first three major elections (during the youth vote years), 66 percent will always identify with that party and 56 percent will never cross party lines." Were your parents registered in a particular party, ACook? If they were registered independents, then they fall in the 34% who don't identify with a particular party. From the sound of it, they voted across party lines, along with 44% of the populace, although I wouldn't be surprised if they voted for one party most of the time.

    My guess is that even most non-party list voters lean toward one party or the other. My father never voted for a Republican in his life, and the only one my Mom ever voted for until recently was Eisenhower. Aside from the two outliers among us kids - the revolutionary socialist and the Guiliani Republican - I doubt any of my moderate Democratic siblings (they're all like your parents, I think) have voted for more than a handful of Republicans in their lives. But I don't want to read too much into my personal experience.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/09/2008 @ 5:02pm

12. Posted by cka2nd at 06/9/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    the article was solid and used good figure. sure some buck the trend, but it did not say everyone who starts identifying with one party always stays loyal. just 56% and 66% usually. i dont see whay the naysayers were naysaying...lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/09/2008 @ 5:05pm

13. You cannot deny that the turnout of younger voters is trending upwards since the 1990's.---Posted by Hman23 at 06/9/2008

    You mean when Repubs won the Congress for the first time in 40 years and Bill Clinton ran on "Third Way/New Democrat"?

    (see below)

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 5:40pm

14. Posted by cka2nd at 06/9/2008

    CKA, if the "youth vote" isn't always "progressive"...

    then why is it that progressives like Mr Connery are always the ones touting it????

    If it leans Left OR Right with no consistancy...then it's meaningless as a "bloc", isn't it?

    And it's certainly meaningless for liberals to keep playing up "the youth vote" if "sometimes it's a CONSERVATIVE youth vote", which means its voting with older conservatives or AGAINST older liberals, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 5:43pm

15. The youth vote won't mean a thing in this general election. In November, I can't wait to see the faces of DNC leadership and all the Obama lunatics who think it's ok to overturn the popular vote. For the past eight years, they told us, that it was a travesty to let George W Bush be "selected" and have our votes be discounted. Then they selected Obama. These DNC "leaders" still don't get the internet. These dolts don't realize that Obama won his extra winning delegates in the caucas states where his staff went on Facebook and Myspace and told thousands of 19 year olds to show up and overwhelm any other candidate. These young people don't have jobs, just classrooms to go to. So, all the caucas states were won by young voters and caucas goers who comprise FOUR PERCENT of the electorate...and in RED states to boot. Obama could not win one major blue state. Nor will he in the general.

    1 Florida and Michigan Democrats who were told their vote is not important will stay home or vote McCain.

    2 Women Democrats who saw the outrageous disrespect and sexism will stay home or vote McCain.

    3 Hispanic Democrats who have replaced blacks as the largest minority, will stay home or vote McCain.

    4 TYPICAL WHITE Democrats will stay home or vote McCain.

    5 Democrats who "cling to their guns and religion" will stay home or vote McCain.

    6 Working class Democrats will stay home or vote McCain.

    That's why the latest polls say that 35 percent of ALL Democrats will not support Obama. Even half that number equals a landslide for McCain.

    Working people especially, hate the people who never put their dues in, but sweet talk the boss or manager to get the promotion that they've been waiting for, after they put their years in and did everything right to learn and be prepared for the job.

    Obama's people loved to make everyone think that Hillary was a BITCH after years of service and especially service to the black community who stabbed her in the back for a pipe dream.

    In November...payback will be a BITCH!!!!!

    Posted by toncuz at 06/10/2008 @ 04:30am

16. Posted by toncuz at 06/10/2008

    Officially now the "R.P.A.A.H.T.O.T.D."

    "Republican Posing As A Hillary Troll Of The Day!"

    Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008 @ 08:57am

17. Posted by cka2nd at 06/9/2008

    CK, I believe my parents were registered democrats (though I've never heard them say which party they were affiliated with). But from listening in on some of their more adult conversations, I would have say they voted across party lines more than half of the time.

    Posted by ACook at 06/10/2008 @ 09:05am

18. Posted by ACook at 06/10/2008

    If you don't mind my asking, in which state or states have your parents spent most of their voting lives? And again, if you don't mind, they are black, correct?

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/10/2008 @ 10:43am

19. Posted by Mask at 06/9/2008

    Well, OK, Mask, you'd obviously rather argue about your preconceptions rather than about what the authors of these blogs actually write. Plus, you can't, or won't, follow the logic of anyone else if their conclusions don't match your evidence-free zone beliefs.

    I'll introduce a new word for you here, "cohort." The Baby Boomers in their youth were one cohort of young voters, as were Gen X, Gen Y and now Millenium voters. As Mr. Connery and others have noted, a significant portion of the cohort of young voters who came of age in the late 70's and early 80's became solid Reagan Republicans because they were recruited into the GOP. Bush, Dean, Iraq, Global Warming and Obama seem to be having the same effect on the Millenium cohort in pushing them into the Democratic column, a significant portion potentially for a lifetime. Meaningless, huh?

    To you, any mention of the youth vote by a Democrat or a liberal that does not dismiss equals "playing it up," even if what was writen doesn't actually fit that mold. Believe me, the GOP would love to have the field left to them and the Young Republicans and all of the internships, conferences, seminars, publications and parties that they have lavished on the youth vote for the last 40 years. Where the hell do you think Karl Rove, Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff came from? You really know nothing about building a political party.

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/10/2008 @ 11:12am

20. Somebody in power please stop Bush.....

    Bush/McBush are creating a macchiavellian, end justifies the means, self-fulfilling prophecy in Iran...we will keep pushing and pushing and pushing in Iran, just like Iraq....even when Saddam was the only glue holding Iraq together, and the Ayatollah in Iran is the supreme leader and already knows exactly what is going on; ahmenijad has a system of checks/balances; our Congress is supposed to be our comparable checks/balances, now that the judiciary is bought out by neocons; GOP yesterday blocked any attempt to tax windfall profits of oil companies, and out the other side of their mouth want to reduce gas taxes which provide jobs, infrastructure, etc.....

    Bottom line: Bush now admits his aggressive stance makes him look like "a man not of peace".....

    Please somebody stop him before it is too late.....it is not an exaggeration to say he and McBush are angling for WWIII...they are both scoundrels who care nothing for the American people....

    Please stop them...Congress grow a pair and stop any attempt by Bush to start a third front in his global utopian social engineering experiment.......for all of our sakes.....

    Posted by jrs112 at 06/11/2008 @ 01:15am

21. Posted by cka2nd at 06/10/2008

    CKA, let me explain this AGAIN...

    the ones who typically push the "youth vote" idea, come (like Mr Connery) from the LEFT side of the aisle.

    Oh, occasionally, the Repubs will "talk up" how "young people turned out to vote for Reagan"...but mostly they don't make a big to-do about it.

    The Left does. Continually (since the 60s) telling us that "the youth vote will turn out and elect ________ (Democrat)".

    So what's the conclusion they're trying to draw?

    Now...what's the VALIDITY of that if the "youth vote" moves to the Republicans occasionally???

    Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 12:04pm

22. Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008

    And I will say it again, Mask. Rather than deal with Mr. Connery's actual arguments, which are specific to cited elections past and present, you lump him in with your bogeyman, "the Left," as making general arguments and characterizations about the youth vote over the last 30-40 years, which he does not do except to note how young people vote depending on the efforts made by the competing parties to get them to vote.

    Again and again, Mask, you engage in a one-sided argument with "the Left" about 1968 and 1972, or about a general contention that NO ONE ELSE even makes anymore (unless you think Rock the Vote counts), instead of confronting the evidence that Mr. Connery and others have presented to make the case that the youth vote of 2008 could be one of the significant factors in electing Barack Obama and many other Democrats this fall.

    The original idea that young people were always and would always be a progressive voting bloc was stupid. Does that make you feel better, to have a card-carrying Leftist say that, even one who never believed it in the first place? Now, can we move on to actual elections and real cohorts of young voters, not to mention Mr. Connery's actual piece?

    Posted by cka2nd at 06/11/2008 @ 3:33pm

23. how depressing if true that partisanship rarely changes and 56% never cross party lines - this indeed explains how the Dems can consistently come up with corporate/centrist candidates and still get the vote of those who think of themselves as progressive - apparently for too many of us it's not the flag on the lapel that counts, it's the "D" on the T-shirt.

    Posted by H2O at 06/11/2008 @ 5:30pm

24. Toncuz - you're still hanging onto that "popular vote" argument?!

    Obama DID win the popular vote, period. That is, if you count my vote.

    I live in a caucus state, Washington, which will likely NEVER vote for a Republican President. Our votes count. They counted for Obama in February, and they'll count again in November.

    And by the way, you're not a typical white voter, you're a typical white bigot. There's a huge difference.

    And finally - just to get it off my chest, I'm so sick of Clintonistas' empty threats. So there's 18 million of you. ..half of you will be smart enough to vote in your best interests, and the other half - well, guess what - we don't need you! More than 122 million people voted in the 2004 Presidential election. You think your relatively tiny constituency of bitter (yeah, I said it) racists is going to sink the democratic nominee's chances? Get over yourselves...

    Posted by nicR at 06/11/2008 @ 7:23pm

25. To anybody STILL on the fence:

    from mother jones: sen. john mccain (R-Ariz.) The gop nominee isn't generally known for an atrocious record on the environment--until recently. While McCain has pioneered greenhouse gas legislation, last year he received a stunning zero rating on the environment from the League of Conservation Voters. The goose egg came because McCain missed every single environmentally relevant vote--including one to break a filibuster over the inclusion of an rps in the 2007 energy bill. And this year, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a version of the economic-stimulus bill that included tax incentives for clean energy. The clean-energy bill failed to overcome a filibuster by just one vote. That could have been McCain's.

    Posted by jrs112 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:07pm

26. YOUTH VOTERS: If you like Stephen Colbert, you'll LOVE this website. LOL was laughing my but off all day:

    www.realdealreport.com

    fake right wing news site

    Posted by cory714 at 06/13/2008 @ 09:58am