This Ain't Your Daddy's Election Year

A fascinating new study tells a lot about how the times really are a-changing. Since Dylan wrote those words, generational change has not produced electoral change in the United States, largely because it didn't result in voting change that reflected the cultural change. Why? Because between 1960 and 2000, the largest turnout in a presidential election was 55% of eligible voters, and sometimes it was below 50%. The world's oldest democracy looked just plain creaky. This was especially true among voters under 30. In that age cohort, politics was frequently looked upon as unresponsive, and even irrelevant. Anything but necessary. We still hear the reverberations of the "turn on, tune in, and drop out" self-defeating admonition. But as the poll indicates, these echoes are finally growing faint.

The frustration for political progressives for the past 50 years has been that while the public frequently favored our positions and values, the other side was generally better at getting their voters to the polls. And the dinosaurs frequently ruled by feeding the perception that political participation didn't matter. When Reagan famously stated in his first inaugural address that government was not the solution, but the problem, he used a cognitive frame that already existed, but more importantly created a self-fulfilling prophesy. The part he didn't mention was that Republican-led government was the problem for those who most needed government to work well. It has taken another 28 years for Americans to recognize that they have stood idly by, while a Reagan disciple nearly burned our great nation to the ground. As Churchill said, you can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.

The tip of the change was viewed four years ago, when we set a modern record with a 62% voter turnout. That election will be viewed in the future as the high-water mark for the fear-based voter manipulation that has characterized the Bush II regime (never mind that it may have been more than the voters that were manipulated). We now stand on the verge of sweeping aside the old order, because this is a change election like no other we have seen. The message of the poll is clear. Eighteen to twenty-four-year olds have historically voted in far lower numbers than other age cohorts, generally under 40% of those eligible. But in 2004, nearly as many18-24's voted on a percentage basis as the rest of the electorate. Their participation increased by nearly one-third from 2000, and they voted for John Kerry by 48-38% (5% for Nader). This year, according to the Harvard poll, over 60% intend to vote (more than 70% of college students), and they favor Obama over McCain by 50-29% (4% for Nader). In this group, which seems likely to be far more important than in the past, Clinton leads McCain by a smaller, 41-34% margin (7% for Nader). Of course, those numbers may well shift by the election, but the trend is obvious. Forty percent of those polled consider themselves Democrats, while only 25% chose the Republican label. The clear risk among this volatile group is that their passion can turn sour and lead them back to the self-fulfilling prophesy. But the trend is even more clear. Even if some lose their enthusiasm, as a group they are not going to vote in lower numbers than in 2004.

Even in more conventional analysis, the fact that John McCain has had no opposition and a virtual free ride from the press for the past 6 weeks, yet he has been unable to obtain a clear lead in national polls over either Democrat, while Clinton and Obama have bashed each other, says that he is likely at his high-water mark now and has nowhere to go but down. But the clear implication of the Harvard poll is that most standard polling estimates of likely voters are flawed, because the kids are, finally, alright.

...and a child shall lead them.