Support NeoGAF

[PeskyToaster]

I would vote third party if I actually agreed with any of them but Clinton is actually a candidate I can support policy wise though I don't think she would make any positive movement on key issues I have like election reforms or course correction on curtailing rights post 9/11. I can deal though but people should get tired of settling eventually.

 

[Super_Cobra]

I really like Johnson. He sounds very sane and had 2 successful terms as governor.
By far the best option in my opinion.

 

[B-Dubs]

Lol

He isn't wrong though. If you turned 18 this cycle you were 10 when Obama was elected.

Exactly.

Biden has been part of the political establishment for literally decades.

He's as much for the status quo as Clinton and would have ran on a "more of the same" message, similarly.

Difference is, he would have sold it in a more folksy granda kinda way.

Bernie's literally been in Congress for decades.

 

[A Human Becoming]

All that said, this is kind of a dumb article to write until the votes have actually been counted and there's solid numbers we can draw from.

It's dumb to write articles about polling. Okay.

 

[Grexeno]

What does this even mean? Obama got young people interested in voting.

And the problem is.....?

It means they have no experience with losing in politics. They honestly don't think Trump or any Republican could get elected, or that America might reject their beliefs.

 

[Staccat0]

Lol

Ah, wise beyond your years.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

It means they have no experience with losing in politics. They honestly don't think Trump or any Republican could get elected, or that America might reject their beliefs.

They're gonna love President Trump and his GOP Congress.

 

[Grexeno]

They're gonna love President Trump and his GOP Congress.

Well they would have if Bernie had won.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's dumb to write articles about polling. Okay.

I never said that and you know I didn't. I said writing an article about how young people are abandoning the two-party structure by comparing August polling with actual counted votes is dumb. An article like this would carry much more weight after election day.

 

[MIMIC]

It means they have no experience with losing in politics. They honestly don't think Trump or any Republican could get elected, or that America might reject their beliefs.

Again....what?

You know there's a new segment of new voters every election cycle, right?

 

[jack_package_200]

People need to understand that the most reliable and valuable voting group for the democratic side is racial minorities. They actually turn out to vote.

While Dems should try to court young voters, they should not put all their eggs in that basket.

 

[ZealousD]

tbf, youngsters have really only been old enough to care that much about politics while Bams was pres, who was really a once in a lifetime kind of guy

This might be true of those who are graduating high school and entering college right now. Certainly not true of those on the higher end of this demo. I am 29 years old (will be 30 in November) and I followed the Bush v Gore race very closely. I was in high school when 9/11 happened and I remember all 8 years of Bush.

I would find it more interesting if pollsters were to break up millennials between 18-25 and 26-35 to see how political opinions differ between those who are old enough to be engaged during the Bush years vs those who weren't. I'm still technically a 20-something and even I see people entering college as "naive kids" sometimes.

 

[A Human Becoming]

I never said that and you know I didn't. I said writing an article about how young people are abandoning the two-party structure by comparing August polling with actual counted votes is dumb. An article like this would carry much more weight after election day.

No, that's exactly what you're saying. The article recognizes this is speculation. It doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning trends. People have written articles based on far less information.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Oh yeah, this will totally be the year the third parties break 10%!

Lol, no. Pollsters need to push these people more. Very few people actually go through with wasting their vote on a third party.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

As most others has said, this means fuck all since Young people don't actually vote.

 

[Hazmat]

Obama got young people interested in voting for him. The youth still evaporated when he needed them the most: midterms.

Young people on the whole simply aren't engaged in governance, mostly for the reasons Blader stated..

Young people also voted for Obama because they were thrilled to get the White House away from Republicans after 8 years of Bush. I know I was. It's easier to sell overthrowing an evil administration than continuing competent leadership and ensuring control of the Supreme Court for 30 years to young people.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Her lead seems higher than Obama's lead in 2012 after you remove undecideds. Let's not fix what isn't broken.

 

[low-G]

I don't think there will be a long term effect with this.

If GOP checks out, which is looking more likely over time, there will definitely be a huge 3rd party surge. Hell, if Trump fucks up more he might lose to Clinton AND a 3rd party.

 

[B-Dubs]

No, that's exactly what you're saying. The article recognizes this is speculation. It doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning trends. People have written articles based on far less information.

No, I think I know what I am saying and that's not what I'm saying. If he really wanted to do this right he could have dug up similar polling from this time 8 years ago, to do the comparison properly. This is concern trolling.

 

[Salvadora]

Bernie's literally been in Congress for decades.

Yes, and I made a clear distinction between the two in that post.

I mean, we have the evidence of Obama v Biden v Clinton in the 2008 primary. And Biden didn't come out top there.

Sure - running against a Republican (and Donald Trump at that), would be very different, but I just fail to see youth engagement returning to Obama-era levels under a Biden nomination. I just can't.

 

[Eidan]

This might be true of those who are graduating high school and entering college right now. Certainly not true of those on the higher end of this demo. I am 29 years old (will be 30 in November) and I followed the Bush v Gore race very closely. I was in high school when 9/11 happened and I remember all 8 years of Bush.

I would find it more interesting if pollsters were to break up millennials between 18-25 and 25-35 to see how political opinions differ between those who are old enough to be engaged during the Bush years vs those who weren't.

Same here. My first election was 2004. I will never forget that crushing disappointment of knowing we'd have four more years of Bush. I can't go back to a Republican presidency.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Yes, and I made a clear distinction between the two in that post.

I mean, we have the evidence of Obama v Biden v Clinton in the 2008 primary. And Biden didn't come out top there.

Sure - running against a Republican (and Donald Trump at that), would be very different, but I just fail to see youth engagement returning to Obama-era levels under a Biden nomination. I just can't.

Cory Booker is the real deal.

 

[TyrantII]

Obama won the under-30 crowd by 34 percentage points in 2008 and by 24 points in 2012. Right now, Clinton’s margin over Trump among 18- to -29- year-olds is 21 points.

24% vs 21% with a margin of error of probably 3%...

This article isnt concern trolling enough. Harder please.

 

[spyroflame0487]

I feel like a lot of young people probably don't vote in general so I don't think there will be big long term effects. The problem here is that there's no love from that demographic for either of the candidates. If there was, you'd have another Obama thing going on. Whats interesting though is that I feel more and more of the voting general public (and maybe even more younger ones) are looking for third party candidates. There was a lot of talk last semester at college of people talking about third party candidates if bernie didn't win so it wont surprise me at all if many of them vote for Jill or Gary.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...g-a-lot-of-young-voters/?ex_cid=2016-forecast



What does GAF think of the long term implications of this? Is it just a one time event for this election, or will we see an overall shift in US politics in the next 10-15 years when the boomers start dying off?

Yes, absolutely I do. This is a generation that has been raised on individual choice, customization, iPhone, 1000 channels, 1 billion websites etc. In a world of endless micro-targeted consumerism, Coke or Pepsi politics will eventually come to seem untenable. There's too much personal compromise involved. It's completely at odds with the rest of the world we live in.

 

[zeelman]

I can't imagine voting for a third party candidate in an election like this, especially since said candidates didn't show up until the primaries were almost over.

 

[Red Frost]

Anecdotally, a large chunk of my friends are flat out not voting. That hasn't happened in any of the other 3 elections we've been able to vote in.

So I believe it.

 

[Ushojax]

Anyone considering voting for Jill Stein needs to come back to reality, she's as mad as Ben Carson.

 

[Meowster]

This is just a personal anecdote, so obviously unreliable, but I was shocked how quickly people I knew around my age flocked to Hillary after the convention. I think there's a good point to talk about here (what can Hillary do to sell herself better to young people) but most of it reeks of concern trolling.

 

[Future]

Young people don't have enough experience in the world to realize waiting votes on stein or Johnson is a complete waste. They think politics barely effects them and have an idealistic desire to send messages to govt.

It's not until they feel some real world scars that they'll realize incremental change is how things work and slowly pushing things forward is the way to go. Obama was a movement for change. Not every election is a movement but young people don't realize this. Probably why they skip midterms altogether

 

[A Human Becoming]

No, I think I know what I am saying and that's not what I'm saying. If he really wanted to do this right he could have dug up similar polling from this time 8 years ago, to do the comparison properly. This is concern trolling.

That I agree with you on that. Providing that data in comparison to the final result would have made a stronger argument. I don't consider it trolling because he notes the polling is not equivalent: it's just speculation.

 

[DietRob]

Can't lose what you never had. Young voters are the most inconsistent voting block that exists. It would be great if they were more engaged and it's something I give Bernie a lot of credit for but they obviously aren't staying engaged.

 

[captmcblack]

Obama was such an epic candidate - both plausible/logical from a political standpoint, and charming/refreshing from a personality standpoint - that to young people who didn't typically give a shit, anything less is instantly disappointing. Plus, it didn't hurt that Obama was also the first black candidate with an actual chance to win (which he did).

Bernie had the personality/charm, but couldn't deliver the meat and potatoes on policy to make people besides young people believe in him enough. Clinton has the meat and potatoes, and the historical context in her favor...but lacks the charm.

Either way, we'll see what happens when it's time to pull the lever. I think the people that do turn out this year will vote against lulz/chaos. Young voters historically don't give a shit unless there's something in it for them anyway, or unless they can feel like part of a "movement".

 

[B-Dubs]

That I agree with you on that. Providing that data in comparison to the final result would have made a stronger argument. I don't consider it trolling because he notes the polling is not equivalent: it's just speculation.

He notes that in 2012 Obama got 24% of the youth vote and right now Clinton is at 21% in polling. We're essentially splitting hairs here over the margin of error in our current polling. Without a fair comparison between the two it feels a lot like concern trolling.

I mean, this is 538 and polling analysis is what they do. They should have a hard drive or something somewhere in the back with these numbers on it, just so they can reference them.

 

[pgtl_10]

I hope in the long term people might change their voting patterns and continue to look outside the two party system.

Having some more choices is never a bad thing.

 

[Abounder]

Hopefully Hillary is the last of the Dems/Rep presidents but that's going to take at least another corrupt economic recession (inevitable though).

Viva la Millennial party revolution, we're coming for ya Wal-Mart and Co.

 

[Aaronology]

I really like Johnson. He sounds very sane and had 2 successful terms as governor.
By far the best option in my opinion.

He isn't an option, though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Younger voters have always had low turnout because they've always been low priority. Generally speaking, people over the age of 65 will roughly have similar interests (retirement), people between 30 and 65 (established career/parents) and people between 18-29 (early career). If you were a politician trying to win an election, and these three groups had mutually conflicting goals (which, to an extent, they do), you'd never pick 18-29. Why? They're the smallest group and so the least electorally advantageous. That process has been going on for decades - since the baby boomers left youth and become the dominant age demographic. Of course younger voters have had lower voting rates for decades - that's roughly how long they've been ignored for.

Young people now are no worse that young people in (whatever time period), and are usually better. It's not like there was a sudden cut-off in 1985 and everyone born after that was shit, as much as half of GAF likes to think so; political information and engagement has actually risen amongst the youngest since the Gen X generation. People aren't not being bothered to vote (well, some are), most of the change comes from them actually choosing not to vote. That falls squarely on those political parties that make no effort.

 

[Blader]

Younger voters have always had low turnout because they've always been low priority. Generally speaking, people over the age of 65 will roughly have similar interests (retirement), people between 30 and 65 (established career/parents) and people between 18-29 (early career). If you were a politician trying to win an election, and these three groups had mutually conflicting goals (which, to an extent, they do), you'd never pick 18-29. Why? They're the smallest group and so the least electorally advantageous. That process has been going on for decades - since the baby boomers left youth and become the dominant age demographic. Of course younger voters have had lower voting rates for decades - that's roughly how long they've been ignored for.

Young people now are no worse that young people in (whatever time period), and are usually better. It's not like there was a sudden cut-off in 1985 and everyone born after that was shit, as much as half of GAF likes to think so; political information and engagement has actually risen amongst the youngest since the Gen X generation. People aren't not being bothered to vote (well, some are), most of the change comes from them actually choosing not to vote. That falls squarely on those political parties that make no effort.

So the reason the vast majority of Millennials don't vote in midterms isn't because they don't follow their state's Senate and congressional races are (or even know that there are elections that year, period), but rather because they find the Democratic/Republican candidates running so objectionable that they actively choose not to vote at all?

Again, do 18- and 19-year-olds skip their local town elections because they're so disgusted by the candidates running for city council and refuse to vote? Or because they actually have no idea it's even happening and, by and large, don't follow non-presidential elections?

 

[ZealousD]

Yes, absolutely I do. This is a generation that has been raised on individual choice, customization, iPhone, 1000 channels, 1 billion websites etc. In a world of endless micro-targeted consumerism, Coke or Pepsi politics will eventually come to seem untenable. There's too much personal compromise involved. It's completely at odds with the rest of the world we live in.

Coke or Pepsi is built into the Constitution. The Electoral College is setup that if a candidate does not get over 50% of the votes, then the House of Representatives gets to pick the president. So let's assume for a second that Gary Johnson gets 40% of the electoral votes, and then Hillary and Trump both get 30%. Gary Johnson still loses because then the House of Representatives get to choose, and they'll vote for Trump.

The two-party system is the logical strategic conclusion of American presidential politics. This will not change until the system changes, and there is no political will to fundamentally alter the Electoral College system right now.

 

[Box]

Now whose fault is that?

It's obviously the fault of the context and the circumstances that lead to a low youth turnout. Of course 'fault' isn't a real thing when you get very specific about it, but it is incredibly unproductive to blame youth as the problem. You can't change youth so it's just an excuse to do nothing. You can however change the context and circumstances. You can change candidate behavior, party behavior, voting laws, election laws, social norms, etc. The ones who have the responsibility to push for these changes are people and organizations with a mission to increase youth voter turnout. Those would be interest groups, political parties, and political campaigns.

 

[gcubed]

This is an article by a very bored person that apparently needed to hit a quota

 

[Maledict]

Given that, policy wise, what Clinton is aiming for is aligned to what a majority of young people want I can't help but feel that 25 years of lies and slander about her has left an entire generation growing up thinking she's the wicked witch of the west or something. We saw a number of former Sanders supporters recanting after they actually met her and realised she wasn't Satan incarnate.

 

[Super_Cobra]

He isn't an option, though.

He should be and he's trying to get in the ballots. I think it's time for a change than just republican or democrat.

 

[Riposte]

I'm convinced this is a pattern, much like in 2000 w Turd Sandwich/Giant Douche. Kids growing up under 8 years of a dem pres don't understand the danger posed if the presidency flips back.

That was 2004, following 4 years of Bush.

 

[Dirca]

He isn't an option, though.

He's my option. Refuse to vote another Clinton into office.

 

[diehard]

Given that, policy wise, what Clinton is aiming for is aligned to what a majority of young people want I can't help but feel that 25 years of lies and slander about her has left an entire generation growing up thinking she's the wicked witch of the west or something. We saw a number of former Sanders supporters recanting after they actually met her and realised she wasn't Satan incarnate.

Or they looked at just the actual facts and realized she is still pretty awful.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So the reason the vast majority of Millennials don't vote in midterms isn't because they don't follow their state's Senate and congressional races are (or even know that there are elections that year, period), but rather because they find the Democratic/Republican candidates running so objectionable that they actively choose not to vote at all?

Again, do 18- and 19-year-olds skip their local town elections because they're so disgusted by the candidates running for city council and refuse to vote? Or because they actually have no idea it's even happening and, by and large, don't follow non-presidential elections?

I think they rarely research candidates, and so a local candidate being particularly good or bad makes very little difference. However, this is true of all people, regardless of age, and not a specifically Millennial trait. A remarkably small fraction of people can name their local representative at almost any level of government, regardless of which demographic you look at. Electors of any age very rarely vote for specific candidates, they vote for labels; and particularly among the youth, the Democratic label is losing its draw. By contrast, while 40-somethings don't care about their local candidate any more than 20-somethings do, they care about the label, the Democratic brand, more, and that motivates them to turn up more.

This, incidentally, is true of almost all political systems. Multiparty systems almost always have higher voter turnout precisely because the odds that there's a label you will support are higher. Almost everyone is politically lo-information, and party affiliation exists to give voters an immediate picture of where someone stands. One of the reasons America has such dreadful turnout compared to other comparable developed nations is because the American electoral system and constitution is atrocious.

 

[Blader]

Or they looked at just the actual facts and realized she is still pretty awful.

I don't think "she's basically a Republican" is a factual statement about Hillary Clinton, which is certainly a sentiment I've seen parroted around just GAF a handful of times.

I think they rarely research candidates, and so a local candidate being particularly good or bad makes very little difference. However, this is true of all people, regardless of age, and not a specifically Millennial trait. A remarkably small fraction of people can name their local representative at almost any level of government, regardless of which demographic you look at. Electors of any age very rarely vote for specific candidates, they vote for labels; and particularly among the youth, the Democratic label is losing its draw. By contrast, while 40-somethings don't care about their local candidate any more than 20-somethings do, they care about the label, the Democratic brand, more, and that motivates them to turn up more.

Whether the voting is driven by party affiliation or actual research into the candidates is beside the point. The fact is 40-somethings and 60-somethings vote more often and in greater numbers than 20-somethings do in local and state elections. That's not because they're taking principled stands against Republicans, Democrats and the two-party system; it's because many of them just don't care. Not because, as you first said, they aren't being offered the policies they want.

 

[The Technomancer]

Man if only all our third party candidates weren't actively terrible