The youth vote, which I mentioned in a previous post, will
be instrument to a Wendy win. So let’s look at Millennials and what their
preferences are likely to be in the 2014 gubernatorial contest and, just as
importantly, whether they will vote in significant numbers.
Millennials constitute those persons born since 1982, which
means that the oldest members of the generation will be 32 in 2014. In
analyzing the 2012 election and the contribution of those voters who were
18-29, William Galston and Elaine Kamarck provided this
assessment:
In 2008, Barack Obama commanded an
astonishing 66 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds, 13 points better than his overall
national share of the vote. He did not do quite as well in 2012, but still hit
60 percent among young adults, 9 points better than his 51 percent national
share.
Today’s young adults are the most
diverse cohort—racially, ethnically, religiously—in American history, as Morley
Winograd and Michael Hais pointed out in a prescient analysis of young people
called Millennial Makeover, published
in time to explain Obama’s first victory. Growing up taking this diversity for
granted has made them instinctively tolerant on a range of social issues. The
vast majority support immigration reform and cannot understand why there is
even an argument about same-sex marriage. Even those who identify as
conservative lean toward libertarianism on social issues. . . .For many of
today’s young adults, environmentalism is a secular religion.
. . . .Eighteen-to-29-year-olds
have experienced more than a decade of costly and controversial wars, and they
are intensely skeptical about the wisdom of overseas military engagements—especially
boots on the ground. They agree with the President’s call for “nation building
here at home,” not only because they believe it has failed abroad but also because
they see needs in their own lives—education and health insurance, among
others—that government must help them meet. A greater share of young adults
than older Americans favors a larger government that does more, and, as we saw,
more of them are willing to self-identify as “liberal.”
The question is, of course, are Texas Millenials like their
national counterparts. There were no exit polls for Texas in 2012; so we’ll
consider the 2010 gubernatorial exit polls in Texas:
Vote by Age, Texas Governor (2010)
Age
(% of Voters)
|
Bill
White
|
Rick
Perry
|
Other/No
Answer
|
18-24 (4%)
|
50%
|
46%
|
4%
|
25-29 (5%)
|
53%
|
46%
|
1%
|
30-39 (13%)
|
47%
|
51%
|
2%
|
40-49 (21%)
|
47%
|
50%
|
3%
|
50-64 (38%)
|
40%
|
58%
|
2%
|
65 +
(20%)
|
36%
|
62%
|
2%
|
Source: CNN, Exit Polls,
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#TXG00p1
Age also affects political participation in Texas:
Source:
Texas Civic Health Index, http://moody.utexas.edu/sites/communication.utexas.edu/files/attachments/strauss/13-00395%20NCC%20CHI%20TX%20FINAL_web.pdf
Judging by the chart depicting age
and political participation in Texas, registration and voter turnout is a major
obstacle to mobilizing the youth vote for Wendy’s campaign. What would motivate
Millennials to take the steps necessary to participate? First, the Davis
campaign must recognize the diversity that characterizes the Millennial
Generation. A CIRCLE
study of American youth notes the different clusters among America’s youth.
In 2010, the study discovered the following clusters and their percentages:
Not surprisingly, youth, like older
adults, specialize in terms of their civic engagement. Two groups—the civically
alienated and broadly engaged—make up nearly half (44.5 percent) of youth.
Political specialists make up an additional 17.5 percent. Talkers are 13
percent, and the under mobilized are nearly 14 percent. What characterizes each
category and how can they be enticed into supporting Wendy?
Youth who occupy the “broadly-engaged”
category will be easily mobilized. According to the report:
The group was defined by their
engagement in a broad range of civic activities. They were the only young
people who worked with neighbors, attended community meetings, took leadership roles
in community organizations, and volunteered on a regular basis. Put
differently, one-fifth of the youth population undertook a vast majority of
community and volunteering work for the entire youth population. White,
college-educated, high-income youth were overrepresented in this cluster.
Almost three quarters of young people in this group attended college and more
than 30% had completed a four-year degree. Women were also overrepresented in
this group.
The “political specialists” are
also easily mobilized. They are similar in some respects to those in the
broadly engaged category, but differ in gender and types of civic engagement:
They were most likely to engage in
non-electoral political acts such as boycotting a product or contacting public
officials about issues in the community (34.0%) and to belong to a group or
association (80.6%). Sixty-five percent of them were registered to vote and
37.8% voted. By contrast, young people in this cluster did not volunteer or
work with neighbors on issues in the community (0% on both measures). Like members of the Broadly Engaged group,
young people in the Political Specialists cluster were highly educated and had
relatively high household incomes, and White youth were overrepresented. In
contrast to the Broadly Engaged group, this cluster included a disproportionate
number of males. . . . The Political Specialists of 2010 were more likely to
engage in political activities than their Broadly Engaged peers, while in 2008,
the Political Specialists engaged almost exclusively in political activities
but at a lower rate than the Broadly Engaged cluster. This finding may suggest
that the young people who fell into the Political Specialists cluster may have
been mobilized specifically for the presidential campaigns that targeted young people
who would not otherwise engage in political activism, particularly by
leveraging social media. On the other hand, the 2010 Political Specialists
cluster comprised a group of young people who engage in political activities
more regularly, and independent of presidential campaigns.
The “under mobilized” category
seems ripe for political engagement, but they must be appealed to by the
campaign and its message:
This group was also unlikely to
engage in any other way, including discussing politics with others. Within this
group, 40.6% turned out to vote in 2010. Though they turned out at a higher
rate than average, almost 60% of the registered voters in this group did not
vote. We term this group Under-Mobilized, given their moderate turnout in
comparison to their 100% registration rate. This group of young people might
comprise voters who registered during the 2008 campaign and remained relatively
unmobilized during the 2010 elections. The most notable feature of this group’s
demographic profile is that African-American youth were overrepresented in this
group. 20.8% of all young people who fall into this category identified as
African American (compared to about 10% in the overall sample). We do not have
definitive information about which of the youth in the Under-Mobilized cluster
were new registrants during the 2008 election cycle. However, a cohort of
people who were 19-21 years old in 2008 and 21-23 in 2010 were the most likely
to be in the under-mobilized category in the latter year. Thus, it is possible
that the potential voters who were registered and perhaps voted in 2008 did not
return to vote in 2010, and otherwise remained disengaged.
The final group that we will
consider are called “talkers” because of their form of civic engagement:
The fifth group included young
people (13.0%) who stayed current by discussing political issues with others
but were otherwise disengaged. A little over half of them were registered to
vote and slightly over one quarter (26.8%) turned out to vote. We label this
cluster the Talkers. Its membership was not very different demographically from
the 18-to 29-year-old cohort as a whole. However, they were more likely to be
male, slightly younger, and less likely to have their own children. They were
also very likely (81.5%) to be highly connected to family and friends via the
Internet. This cluster might represent a group of young people who are
interested in political issues but have not had a chance to participate or simply
have not been asked to participate. Because this group is well-connected to
family and friends through social media and the Internet, the young people in
this cluster may have a potential to be mobilized using newer Internet
technologies.
The following is from the summary
section of the report:
Most of the civic activities that
take time, commitment and advanced skills were undertaken primarily by young
people in two clusters: the Broadly Engaged and the Political Specialists. Broadly
Engaged youth took on the bulk of sustained service and community
problem-solving activities accomplished by youth, and also contributed much to political
participation, while Political Specialists were responsible for much of the political
activism. These two clusters made up approximately one-third of the youth
population.
What does this study reveal for a
campaign that depends on youth as a component of its campaign strategy and
tactics? First, the fully engaged and political specialists are primed to
participate, but they do need to be mobilized. They are registered to vote; so
the emphasis should be on voter turnout. The under mobilized are also
registered to vote, but they need to be mobilized and given a reason to vote.
The talkers present an interesting challenge since they’re interested in
politics, but only about half are registered and a little over a quarter vote.
So the challenge is to register them, then vote them. But it’s doable.
The youth vote, given their liberal
position on social issues, should prefer Wendy. But they need to be registered,
given a reason to vote for her, and then be turned out. Can it happen?
Definitely!
No comments:
Post a Comment