Everyday Politics Blog

Youth Voting in Off-Year Elections

Michael Xenos

As many readers no doubt know, there are some fairly high profile gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey set to culminate this week, along with many other elections at various levels around the country of course. (For a convenient run-down on these races, try Ron Gunzburger’s Politics1 site, which is also a great general resource for basic information about any race, including links to candidate websites – see the 50 states page.) Given the increases in youth voting seen over recent history and the key role young voters played in last year’s elections, a lot of folks are wondering what kinds of patterns in youth voting we’ll see this week. 

The researchers over at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), who provide superb reports on political participation among young people strike a somewhat optimistic chord in an advisory on the VA and NJ gubernatorial races recently posted to the homepage their website.  Looking back at the last three presidential races, for example, the trend is toward growth in youth voting in both states.  In New Jersey, the 18-29 year old turnout rate went from 41.4% in 2000, to 51.2% in 2004, and 53.0% in 2008. The comparable rates for Virginia were 47.2% (2000), 43.1% (2004), and 58.7% (2008). As CIRCLE director Peter Levine points out in the same advisory, however, turnout usually declines in off-year elections as compared to presidential election years. Indeed, CIRCLE data show national youth turnout in midterm elections as typically ranging between 25 and 20%. Nevertheless, the trend data available seem to point to a potential for youth turnout to continue to rise as compared to previous election years of the same kind.

Others are more skeptical. For example, in a recent Op-Ed column, E.J. Dionne speculates that large proportions of the young people who became energized by the excitement of last year’s historic election may virtually disappear this week, and in the upcoming midterm elections as well. Quoting Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, this year seems to already be bringing "a dramatically lower level of turnout from Obama surge voters." The column also features quotes from some interviews that Lake has conducted with young Obama surge voters, which are disturbingly telling: "One of them said, 'I'm tired of politics, I need a rest.' A second said, 'When is Obama up again?' The third said, 'I don't like what any of them are doing in Washington, opposing Obama's agenda.' "

As students in American Government courses, and likely members of the youth voting demographic, what do you think will happen in the next couple of election cycles?  Do you think that the Obama surge will meet with a notable decline, with younger voters who entered the political process last year getting “tired” of politics and staying home on Election Day?  Or, do you agree with those, like the authors of the book Millennial Makeover, who think that today’s younger generation is distinctive in its upbeat, optimistic, and more participatory outlook, and is poised to continue taking a greater role in American politics?  Most important, do you plan to vote?

Are We Entering A New Era?

By Scott Lemieux

In his classic book The Politics Presidents Make, the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek argues that the basic structure of American politics can be broken down into a remarkably small number of eras:  The Jeffersonian (1800-1828), the Jacksonian (1828-1860), the Republican (1860-1932), the New Deal (1932-1980), and the Reagan Revolution (1980-?).    Once we understand the basic politics of a period, we can see presidents facing recurring political challenges that are comparable to a number of past presidents.  Skowronek uses four categories, based on 1)the health of the dominant regime and 2)the president's relationship to that regime:

For the most recent political era, Reagan was the reconstructive president, challenging existing political and constitutional understandings with substantial success. Both Presidents Bush were "affiliated" presidents, articulating and extending the politics initiated by Reagan. (Except for the fact that he won re-election, George W. Bush is comparable to Lyndon Johnson, in that the regime reached its apotheosis under his administration, but in many respects the dominant regime's underlying political coalition collapsed.) Clinton -- who Skowronek, remarkably, predicted could face a serious impeachment treat just after his re-election -- was a "pre-emptive" president, attempting to keep a minority political coalition together while collaborating in important respects with the dominant regime.)

Which brings us to an interesting question -- does the Obama administration represent a new political era?    In a sense, the success (or lack thereof) of his proposed health care reform represents the first major test.   If major legislation reflecting a different understanding of the role of government passes, combined with such factors as some clashes with federal courts still largely under the control of the Reagan regime and electoral validation in 2012, we may in retrospect see the 2008 election as pivotal.  Conversely, if Obama cannot secure re-election and his legislative accomplishments are more limited or less durable than might be expected, the Obama administration could be seen as a failed pre-emptive president in an overwhelmingly Republican era.     Which do you see as more likely?    

YouTube and Politics Conference

Michael Xenos

Every year or so, typically in the pages of magazines focused on news and public affairs, one usually finds a journalistic account of the annual Midwest Political Science Association meetings.  As far as the content of those publications goes, it's good copy: useful and interesting insights from some of your professors into key questions of the day (such as post-mortem analyses of the recent elections, or new developments in political science research), mixed in with some mildly snarky sharing of notable or humorous panel titles. You can read a specimen from this year here.

In line with the idea that this blog is tailored more toward "everyday politics" as experienced by students in introductory American Politics courses, in this post I share some of what I learned at a special conference I attended last week on the UMass Amherst campus.  Unlike the Midwest Political Science Association meetings, which cover a range of topics, this conference was specifically organized around the role of YouTube in the 2008 Election Cycle.  In the interest of full disclosure, I'll note at this point that, along with Stu Shulman (UMass Political Science), I served as a co-chair for this event -- which is another way of saying that I'll leave out any show and tell focused on odd paper or panel titles, and focus on interesting insights I gleaned from the two-day conference, which featured research on the role of YouTube in politics from political scientists, as well as presentations by computer scientists, communications scholars, rhetoricians and others.

Many of the papers provided systematic documentation of things that many readers of this blog likely already feel at an intuitive level -- mainly that YouTube has definitely started to change our experience of politics, everyday and otherwise. 

For example, G.R. Boynton of the University of Iowa presented a paper examining the dynamics of viewership for YouTube videos related to the campaigns.  Represented by a "simple dynamics equation," Boynton essentially documents the rapid rate at which once released, campaign videos (like McCain's "Celeb") find their natural or potential audience. In a related paper, Kevin Wallsten of California State Long Beach analyzed views of will.i.am's "Yes We Can" video, showing the role played by campaign communications and blog discussion in driving views of the famous video.  Despite what we might think about how coverage in the mainstream media might explain the rapid diffusion of videos like this, among other things Wallsten's analysis suggests that in this case, the media coverage actually followed rather than led the viewing statistics. 

Still other papers examined things like the YouTube debates (which stood in stark contrast to traditional debates where the "audience" is basically barred from participation), and the ways in which sending someone a link to a video (either through email or by posting it on a Facebook wall) has become a new kind of political conversation.  In all, these papers and others presented at the conference show how digital media like YouTUbe have in some ways taken us into a whole new world of politics that dramatically differs from the "old media" world of broadcast television and more formal ways of engaging with election politics. 

At the same time though, there were also other findings that might surprise you in a different way, or at least dampen any thoughts about YouTube radically changing the conduct of campaigns.  On this side of things, Robert Klotz of the University of Southern Maine shared research documenting the dominance of campaign-related content on YouTube with a decidedly "old media" feel -- such as those all-too-familiar 30-second television advertisements, and clips from cable talk shows.  So much for the motto of "Broadcast Yourself." Similarly, Christine Williams and Jeff Gulati of Bentley College (who also took "best paper" honors at the conference) presented an analysis of candidates' use of the new tool, some of which showed that even though the technology is cheap and relatively available to all kinds of candidates, candidates with more financial resources, those in tight races, and incumbents were more likely than other kinds of candidates to create a channel and post more videos.

In his presentation at the conference, David Karpf of the University of Pennsylvania presented another take on the infamous "Macaca Moment," where 2006 Virginia Senate candidate George Allen in many ways put YouTube on the political map.  Although many have come to view this incident as a key example of how new, participatory media like YouTube can enable 'a lone person with a videocamera' to have a powerful impact on the process, Karpf's research uncovers the sense in which this popular understanding of the event ignores the roles played by activists, bloggers, and political organizations in determining how that event and others like it have played out.

Naturally, as a conference about YouTube, there are associated videos and lots more information freely available online.

Conference information here.
YouTube clips related to the papers are here.
And, there's also another really important finding related to the conference here.

Partisanship and the Internet

I would like to follow up on David's excellent post on partisanship and Obama's inauguration speech. It fits in well with some research that I did over the winter break.

One of the on-going debates about the role of the Internet and American politics is that the Internet is helping to make people increasing partisanship. Instead of just picking up the newspaper and getting exposed to both sides of an argument. We run to the Internet and find like-minded people. If we're liberal, we find liberal websites and blogs and get more liberal. If we're conservative, we go to conservative website and blogs and get more conservative. We cocoon ourselves with like minded folks and get more extreme in our belief systems. This is the argument of Cass Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Over the break, I looked at hours and hours of YouTube videos related to the 2008 election. (Yes, I have a good job.) There was quite a variety of videos. Some were clips of political pundits from news shows. Some were snippets of the debates or speeches. Others were "montages" or a compilation of gaffs or grimaces by a candidates aimed at making fun of them. Still others were short films that combined politics with entertainment.

Which ones do you think were the most popular? Do you think these videos helped to drum up enthusiasm for the election? Do you think these videos increased partisanship?

Here's a sample of videos: 

Ron Howard's Call To Action from Ron Howard

Voting Booth Choices

By Laura McKenna

When people go into the voting booth, they typically make their decision based on three criteria: party affiliation, issues, and candidate characteristics. If they are very knowledgeable, voters can choose between the candidates based on their positions on important policy areas such as the environment, education, or energy. But most voters don’t have the time to do that kind of research, particularly when there are so many different candidates on the ballot. So, they often rely upon party affiliation to help them make a decision.

Voters also may make their decision based upon candidate characteristics. They may ask themselves: Does the candidate look like me? Does she seem like someone I could have a beer with? They may look at the candidate’s personal life for clues about whether or not the candidate would be a good leader. Does the candidate lead an honorable life that would be a model for all Americans? Does an affair mean that he would not be a trustworthy leader?

In the extreme, scandals from candidates' personal lives can destroy political careers. 

Some recent examples:

• In June 2007, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was taken into custody by a plain-clothes officer for lewd conduct in a men’s restroom in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The officer alleged that the Senator tapped his foot under a neighboring stall, "as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct." Sen. Craig responded that  he was not gay and his foot was under the neighboring stall, because he has a "wide stance."  Senator Craig is still a member of the Senate, though he does not plan to run for reelection.

• In March 2008, Gov. Eliot Spitzer of NY was caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a $4,000 per hour prostitute at a Washington hotel. Spitzer was forced to resign from office a short time later.
• In Oct. 2007, the National Enquirer reported that recent presidential contender John Edwards had an affair while his wife battled breast cancer. As a result, Edwards was not invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention in August, and he was taken off the short list for vice presidential consideration. 
• And who can forget Monica Lewinsky and the blue dress. President Bill Clinton was able to weather that storm, but at a huge cost.

While these are recent events, political scandals have a long and glorious history in our country. For example, in 1884, President Grover Cleveland was accused of fathering a love child with Maria Halpin, a store clerk.

Presidential scandals open up long standing questions. Do these scandals tell us much about the character of the official? If President Clinton was willing to risk his marriage for a fling with an intern, would he have been willing to risk the safety of our country? If politicians lie to their spouses, will they lie to us the voters, as well?  David Brooks and Gail Collins recently debated this topic on a New York Times blog.

In the past couple of weeks, we’ve seen yet another new scandal, but one that has taken a new twist.

After a weekend of strange speculations on political blogs, vice presidential hopeful Gov. Sarah Palin, admitted that her unmarried 17 year old daughter, Bristol, was pregnant.

However, this potential scandal seems not to have dented Palin’s huge popularity; Palin is partially responsible for John McCain's post-convention surge in the polls. One theory is that her daughter's pregnancy actually made her more attractive to voters, because so many people have confronted similar challenges with their own kids. The public may have identified with her, because of her daughter’s unplanned pregnancy.

Popularity because of family difficulties is something new in American politics. While many families have also had to deal with marital infidelities, previous scandals were all net losses for politicians. Perhaps the Palin "scandal" will open the door for future candidates with a less-than-perfect personal record.

This tale exposes a conflict among Americans about what we want in a candidate. Do we want candidates who are better than we are – more moral, more educated, more talented? Or do we want candidates who are just as flawed as we are? What counts more: candidate identification or candidate character?

This debate also underscores the limits of issues and party loyalty in determining the next president. With the declining strength of political parties and the age-old problem of learning about policy issues, discussions about identity politics and presidential character are certain to continue until Election Day.