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?

Partisanship and Media

Michael Xenos

Recently there has been a fair amount of buzz surrounding White House comments about Fox News, including statements about whether it is a “real” news network and the extent to which administration officials would treat it as such.  The conflict has provided a veritable treasure trove of grist for pundits on the right and left, and it has also drawn a fair amount of interest from regular citizens interested in politics. An interesting sampling of the latter can be found in the comment feed associated with a recent New York Times article on the issue.

One of the benefits of a class such as the one you’re taking lies in its ability to put things like this in context.  Indeed, that’s one of the points of this blog as well.

If you were in a history class, you might be reminded of the various other presidents from earlier eras that have taken similarly aggressive stances toward the media, typically with poor results (e.g. Grant, McKinley, FDR, Nixon, see here for a discussion of this). In a political science course, however, perhaps the most important contextual information comes from research on the increasingly partisan nature of media consumption. In other words, comments from current administration officials may be similar to historical statements like Spiro Agnew’s famous quip about “nattering nabobs of negativism," but there is a new wrinkle in the sense that the current comments belong to a qualitatively different media environment with respect to news programming and political partisanship.

As Laura mentioned in a previous post, scholars have suggested that one of the byproducts of our new media environment is that people have much more control over what they watch, listen to, and read than they once did, and this has implications for how the media and politics are related.  Think about your parents or grandparents for example, and how they had to walk across the room to turn a heavy, clunky knob in order to change the channel on the television.  The walking was strenuous, but don’t feel too bad for them. They typically had only 3 or 4 channels to choose from. In contrast, today we have a practically unlimited variety of content to choose from at any hour of the day or night. The political implications of this are that many people now exercise a fair amount of filtering with respect to how and where they get political news – liberals can watch MSNBC and read the Daily Kos while conservatives can watch Fox and read Hot Air. (The two blogs mentioned here represent the most influential liberal and conservative blogs, respectively, as measured by political scientist David Karpf’s useful Blogosphere Authority Index.)  As far as cable television news goes, one is reminded of Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar’s research on partisan preferences for news content, which uses a clever experiment to demonstrate that there are clear differences in how liberals and conservatives react to identical headlines and news stories, based on which network they are attributed to.  (For the original paper, click here; for a more accessible write up in the Washington Post, click here.)  At the same time, researchers like Princeton’s Markus Prior suggest that an even bigger trend is for many people to exercise their newfound range of content choice to avoid political content altogether in favor of more entertaining programming.

So, it may be useful to think about some of these trends as you hear or perhaps even participate in more partisan discussions of these matters.  Do you see variation in the amount and kinds of political media consumed by you and your friends based on their levels of interest in politics and partisan leanings?  What implications does this have for how you think about the current flap between the White House and Fox News?

Making Sense of Public Opinion on Health Care Reform

Michael Xenos

While there are many issues facing the government right now, health care reform is undoubtedly an item near the top of the policy agenda. As Scott’s recent post points out, major reform efforts such as those surrounding health care right now are especially difficult in a political system such as ours.  Nevertheless, as the discussion on this morning’s Meet the Press shows, supporters of reform like White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett believe there is strong momentum on health care reform and we seem to be nearing what host David Gregory calls “brass tacks time” on the issue.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In news coverage of the health care debate, which according to one estimate is about 10% of all news stories right now, we hear a lot about public opinion on health care reform. Opponents are quick to tout polls that paint a picture of rising opposition to the reform packages being considered in Congress, while supporters point to majority approval of various key provisions of the plans under discussion.

Informed consumers of public opinion polls typically make sense of individual results by looking to factors such as whether the poll is based on a scientifically sound random sampling technique, what population is being sampled (for example, the general public or “likely voters,” which may be defined in a number of ways), the specifics of question wordings, and other factors known to have a strong influence on the numbers and their implications. For complicated issues such as health care reform, it is also helpful to seek more in-depth analysis provided by public opinion experts. In the past, this kind of analysis was difficult to find.  Now, however, there are a variety of resources available online, such as pollster.com and others I’ll mention below, that offer valuable insights for understanding the flood of sometimes conflicting and confusing poll numbers we are seeing in the media.

On the health care issue, for example, the non-partisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press recently issued an informative report on health care opinion. (Readers of one of my previous posts will be relieved to know that these researchers are keenly aware of the contemporary difficulties surrounding telephone polling, and regularly integrate cell-phone users into their surveys.) Their report provides a detailed account of the mixed picture created by support for specific provisions alongside opposition to broader packages.  By way of explanation, they suggest that “[t]he disconnect between support for specific elements of health care legislation and overall opposition to the proposals in Congress appears to be driven by a lack of understanding about what is being proposed, the complexity of the topic and declining trust in Congress.” Indeed, in a separate survey probing what the public knows about various issues in politics, the Pew researchers found that only 56% of their respondents recognized “the public option” as a part of the current health care reform debate (as opposed to pertaining to Energy and the environment, Banking reform, or Unemployment), with 33% confessing that they didn’t know what issue it was related to and 11% incorrectly guessing one of the other options.  Polling expert David Moore further emphasizes this aspect of public opinion on health care in a post on his blog, SkepticalPollster.com.  In discussing some of CNN’s polling on the issue, Moore suggests that “the dysfunctional results can be found in a question that was not reported on CNN’s website, politicalticker, but was posted in its archive. When asked how much they knew about the details of Obama’s health care proposals, almost six in ten respondents admitted that they knew little to nothing – after having just opined about them during the previous twenty-minute survey. Only 11 percent said they knew “a good deal.””

Hopefully, as the policy process moves forward, more Americans will become more informed about this major policy issue.  Conventional wisdom tells us that when that happens we will see opinion become more stable and less confusing. In the meantime, we should be aware of this important facet of opinion on health care and take this as a good opportunity to think and talk about key aspects of public opinion in American Government courses.

Are Opinion Polls an Endangered Species?

Michael Xenos

You wouldn’t think so based on paying casual attention to the major news stories of the day. Just yesterday, while interviewing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullin on Meet the Press, David Gregory referred to findings from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggesting that 51% of Americans do not think that the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting. Coverage of the current battle over health care reform commonly includes references to President Obama’s approval ratings and a variety of policy-specific opinion figures. Incidentally, a useful source of relatively raw versions of these kinds of poll results is Polling Report.com.
 
And why shouldn’t there be a lot of discussion about what the public thinks in a representative democracy such as ours? Most would agree that having information on what the public thinks about various issues is important in a democracy, and although they have their problems, traditional public opinion polls conducted by telephone are the most sophisticated and scientifically refined means we have of gathering such information. However, as one of my colleagues recently reminded me, even those who make a living from telephone surveys are wondering how much longer they will be able to provide useful information about the American public’s attitudes and opinions.
 
My colleague pointed me to a story in which Jay Leve, the CEO of SurveyUSA (the country’s largest polling firm) is quoted making a number of comments suggesting that the telephone-based public opinion poll as we know it, is likely a creature that is not long for this world. Some of the reasons are probably obvious to readers of this blog. Most notably there is the difficulty most pollsters have in reaching young people and others who rely exclusively on their cellular phones and are not connected to any kind of landline. Moreover, due to the nature of cellular phones, even if a pollster manages to get someone to answer their call, it is no longer to tell things like where they live based on the number. Perhaps most interesting is Leve’s analysis of a much less technical issue, the fact that we simply lead much more complicated and different lives than we did when these techniques were perfected. In his words: “Ringing someone’s phone without warning and asking if they have 20 minutes to spend with you flies in the face of everything that’s going on in the world today. I barely have 20 minutes to spend with my daughter.”
 
On a more positive note, Leve also suggested ways that polling might adapt to the realities of our contemporary lifestyles, such as making the whole process more interesting and even enjoyable for the respondents. If effective, such adaptations might point to the evolution of polling more than its extinction.  
 
What do you think?  Are opinion polls valuable? Are they obsolete? What role should they play in our political system?

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.

Jon Stewart: Friend or Foe of Democracy?

Michael Xenos

In an earlier post, Laura closed a rather depressing entry with an offer for you to cheer up by indulging in some of Jon Stewart’s comedy.  But last week’s “Jon Stewart vs. Jim Cramer” confrontation raises a number of issues that remind us that laugh-out-loud comedy and serious issues related to American Politics are not always at odds. Although a mound of statistics would suggest that very few of you reading this have not already seen some of what I am referring to, I’ll include the following link in case you just never quite got around to viewing those links and clips that people may have sent you.

In addition to being wildly entertaining in its own right, the week-long confrontation, culminating in Cramer’s appearance on The Daily Show last Friday brings to light some of the principal features of political comedy (including The Daily Show, but also shows like The Colbert Report, and occasionally Saturday Night Live) that are often cited as evidence that we should be either alarmed or pleased that more and more young people are claiming to learn something about politics from people like Jon Stewart and comedy programming in general.

On the positive side, this exchange (much like its counterpart, the famous Jon Stewart appearance on CNN’s Crossfire years ago) illustrates the unique perspective comics like Stewart are able to offer on matters of public interest. As Stewart frequently points out, he is not a regular journalist and claims no special expertise on matters political or economic. As such, he is unconstrained by journalistic norms such as objectivity, and can say things and ask questions that television journalists simply cannot. Thus he is able to in this case develop a strong critique of his guest, and an entire class of television news content. Simply put, Stewart is able to engage in a serious discussion about the proper role of journalism (in this case, financial journalism), even if it is in the context of jokes and humor.

In addition to providing a kind of critical commentary that other news sources cannot, good political comedy also makes politics fun. This is valuable because as your textbook illustrates, for most people, most of the time, taking the time to learn something about politics is an uphill battle. Except for those who have an inherent interest in politics and public affairs, most people find little reward in learning about the issues of the day, and as a result, we often have to be careful about how we interpret things like opinion poll results. By weaving humor into discussions of current affairs, and yes, as Joe Scarborough points out, making the occasional funny face, Stewart makes otherwise unattractive information enjoyable to think about. According to political scientist Matthew Baum, by combining the serious and the amusing, political entertainment programming or soft news can serve as a “gateway” to learning more about serious issues, especially for those who are generally less interested in politics. Although Baum’s research primarily focuses on soft news coverage of foreign policy matters, the basic principle is applicable to a variety of political issues. In the case of Stewart vs. Cramer, it is possible that the event led a considerable number of people to have conversations and consume media content related to the financial crisis that they otherwise may have easily passed up.

Detractors of political comedy and soft news often point out that the thrust of the content is usually negative. Whether in the form of the monologues at the start of late-night talk shows, skits on SNL, or more in-depth “correspondent coverage” on The Daily Show, political comedy usually involves highlighting embarrassing gaffes or personal foibles, which leads many to worry that a steady diet of such content might fuel cynicism and disaffection from public affairs the political process. The same principle might be invoked with respect to Stewart’s media criticism. By making fun of serious news (financial or otherwise), some people worry that such humor may end up turning even more people away from programs and content that, despite their problems, are often a reasonable source of information about political issues of the day.

Either way, the increasing popularity of such programming further illustrates a broader issue, which is that important elements of how individuals learn about politics and form opinions are changing in response to a shifting media landscape, which makes it a very interesting time to be learning about American Politics. So, cheer up, and learn something about politics, but please try not to let it make you too cynical.

 

 

 

The New (Media) President

Michael Xenos

As the clocks struck exactly 12:00 noon on January 20th, most people were probably watching Itzhak Perlman, Yo Yo Ma, and others perform "Air and Simple Gifts." A few pointy-headed types may have been wondering or debating whether President Obama was already the President or not, given the provisions of the 20th Amendment. But hardcore nerds were tuning their browsers into www.whitehouse.gov, which at that time was completing its transition to its new, Obama Administration form. In this post, I offer a few comments on the new presidential web presence, and the 44th president's use of new media more broadly, within the context of presidential politics.

The new whitehouse.gov site offers a number of indications that President Obama's reputation as a "new media politician" will be further stoked by his administration's management of that piece of cyberspace that has been the presidential web portal since 1997. First off, the site now features a blog and offers weekly video addresses that will likely be popular among those who have become accustomed to viewing and sharing video snippets of all kinds on sites like YouTube.com. In one of the first entries to the blog, Macon Phillips, the Director of New Media for the White House announces a tripartite vision for the new president's new media strategy that centers on Communication, Transparency, and Participation. Under that last heading, a key feature of the site is a policy of publishing all non-emergency legislation to the site for five days, in a format that enables direct public comments. For example, at the time of this writing, one can now view the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, better known as the State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP, and fill out a form to submit up to 500 characters of comment. It's not like the comment threads you might imagine from reading popular blog sites, but it does directly solicit citizen input in a unique new format.

However, by way of the Wayback Machine, one may find a number of strands of continuity between this new whitehouse.gov and previous incarnations, beneath the overarching sheen of "change" and Obama's image as a new media politician. For example, most text is rendered in very official tones, with the President appearing largely through images and re-posting of formal speeches and written documents, such as his first presidential proclamation. Additionally, the proposed system of soliciting public feedback on non-emergency legislation aside, the blog and other parts of the sites are noticeably comment-free. In that sense, although we have yet to see how they will materialize over time, many of the interactive parts of the site could end up functioning much the same as the "White House Interactive" section of the Bush administration's version of the site, where selected comments received answers from staffers, often on questions as simple as 'What number president is George W. Bush?'

To be fair, this is the official website of the President after all, and not an online journal or a MySpace profile. One would certainly be surprised to find a "Wall" on the front of whitehouse.gov, or a feature enabling fellow users to "poke" one another. Somewhat greater possibilities, closer to those just mentioned, may be envisioned in President Obama's recently announced organizing website, Organizing for America, which seems to be the main vehicle through which the administration will work with its vast network of supporters who provided information in some form during the primary and general election campaigns in order to help build support for its political objectives. As Scott mentioned in a recent post, even in a world where the President and a majority of both Houses of Congress favor a policy, there are many points at which the brakes can still be applied. Tools such as this recently announced site are part of the process by which Presidents try to work around such potentialities.

Although presidents have been "Going Public" (to use Kernell's phrase) for some time, if the Obama administration leverages this information to its fullest potential, it may be able to create a permanent campaign of the hypermedia variety. This would offer a new version of the presidential practice of bypassing traditional political bargaining and strategy by pressing their case directly to the public. This means sophisticated microtargeting of particular appeals for action to people who care deeply about a specific issue, perhaps only in districts or states connected to specifically chosen members of Congress. Far more efficient than the traditional notion of going public largely through broadcast television, this route offers unprecidented efficiency, potentially applying political pressure exactly where needed (and not elsewhere), without straining the patience of those in the database who may not care about the specific issue at hand (thus saving them a lot of email fatigue, and preserving their enthusiasm for other initiatives). Call it "Going Public 2.0" if you will.

The Youth Voted (past tense)

By Michael Xenos

As soon as the last pieces of confetti hit the floor, or at least as soon as they were swept up, people began parsing the meaning of this historic election and exploring questions about what happened that go beyond the basic outcome. As a follow-up to my earlier post, in this post I specifically take a look at what we now know about youth participation in 2008.  As we’ll see in a moment, the data paint a picture that reminds us of 2004 in some ways, but also offers a new wrinkle or two. Overall, I think there is much to be excited about with respect to youth voting in 2008, especially if the momentum is cultivated properly.

Let’s start with the glass half-empty interpretation: as in 2004, increases in youth turnout were accompanied by increases in the rates of voting among members of other age groups. So ultimately, if we look at youth turnout as the share of all of the ballots cast that came from people under 30, the pollsters estimate that number to be 18%, just one percentage point higher than in 2004. 

However, I think there are plenty of reasons to be particularly excited about youth turnout in 2008. For one thing, the sheer numbers are exciting. As the folks at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) point out, there were 3.4 million more 18-29 year old voters this year as compared to the last presidential election, making the overall total number of young voters an inspiring 23 million.

The picture also looks much better if we consider other ways of describing youth turnout. Many researchers looking at youth turnout consider Bill Clinton’s first presidential victory in 1992 as a point of reference.  In that election, youth turnout (as a proportion of young people, rather than total ballots) hit 52%. As the CIRCLE report indicates, the precise numbers are still being tabulated, but at this point this year’s turnout is looking like it will very closely match, or even surpass that number.  If it does, 2008 will replace 1992 as the year with the highest youth turnout since 1972, when 18-year olds first received the right to vote.

Although the prospect of having 2008 replace or join 1992 as a milestone for youth participation is exciting, for the most part, these arguments follow the 2004 post-mortem discussions fairly closely.  One significant difference over last time though, is the strong support for Obama along age lines. As Andrew Gelman points out, this year marks a steep increase in the age-gap in partisan support.  As the third graph in his post on the election shows, as compared with 2004 or 2000, the difference in support for the Republican candidate between 25 year olds and 35 year olds this time around is striking. You may recall that in 2004, people talking about whether the youth vote turned out often cited the fact that Kerry lost as evidence that the youth vote didn’t make a difference.  In an oft quoted one-liner, the late Hunter S. Thompson put it colorfully in his response to youth voting in 2004: "Yeah, we rocked the vote all right…Those little bastards betrayed us again." Suffice it to say it’s a shame that Thompson is not around to be surprised that things turned out differently this time.

So, what caused young people to play an important role in this election?  Was it Rock the Vote, or other similar efforts?  Alternatively, was it Obama’s explicit appeals to young people throughout the campaign and aggressive attempts to reach them through popular outlets such as text messaging and social network websites? (To be fair, John McCain also has a Facebook page, although it seems to be less popular than the President-elect’s.) Or was it issues like the economy, which is particularly salient for people just getting ready to start their careers and economic lives?  Unfortunately, it will take time to sort out questions such as these with data, although young people I’ve talked to certainly have their suspicions.

To conclude, I think Peter Levine of CIRCLE makes one of the best points about these patterns, which is that the important thing is to keep the ball rolling with more efforts to engage new young people in the political process and also to keep those who just joined the process interested and involved.

The Youth Vote

By Michael Xenos

As Scott mentioned in an earlier post, we had a touch of bad weather in my part of the country early in the semester, which has led me to become the last of our regular contributors to welcome you to the blog and our ongoing conversations at Everyday Politics. Two things that Gustav has not dampened, however, are my efforts to keep an eye out for items of everyday politics that you all may find interesting, and my enthusiasm for this blog as a place to help you talk about and make sense of American Politics.

One thing most readers of this blog probably live with everyday is the unique experience of being a young voter in the midst of an election season where there is an unprecedented amount of attention being showered upon young people. When you go to the campaign websites of either Barack Obama or John McCain, for example, you find special pages devoted to young people with snappy titles like Generation Obama or Future Leaders for McCain. In the blog section of the Generation Obama page, you'€™ll even get the opportunity (rare on a campaign website) to leave comments on the posts. Moreover, in addition to familiar campaigns such as MTV'€™s Rock the Vote, the PIRGs'€™ New Voters Project, and Norman Lear'€™s Declare Yourself, a number of more novel and irreverent efforts are also fighting for your attention.

For instance, 19-year-old filmmaker David Burstein is currently touring the country with his inspiring film, 18 in 08, which features interviews with everyday young people as well as an impressive array of national political figures and celebrities underscoring the importance of youth voting. Of course, there is also a vibrant and feature-filled website associated with the film as well. On it, visitors can learn about the film, get information on registering to vote, and find links to information on the candidates. Rounding out the site's effort to connect with young people, it also offers links to things like an interesting election-themed online game, and a rich supply of online video content. If your tastes run a bit edgier, you don'€™t feel like watching a whole movie about voting, and you don't mind a little coarse language, you can simply surf over to BotherVoting.org. There you can find a selection of cheeky and over-the-top exhortations to exercise your right to vote that come in the form of hip e-cards that you can send to friends and family (which is believed to be a popular form of communication among young people). Naturally, this site too features links to voter registration information and sites like Rock the Vote.

These campaigns are important. But it is worth noting young people are also no strangers to targeted marketing efforts. As a result, they are likely to consider more than just whether or not celebrities (or others) are telling them they should vote when they decide whether they will participate in this election. As James Carville wryly notes in 18 in 08, young people are incredibly adept at figuring out when people are trying to influence them, and their tolerance for shallow efforts is lower than that of older folks.

In other words, it's important to recognize that young people also care about issues, and by and large youth care about many of the same issues as other Americans. Just take the last presidential election for example. Whether you read the youth turnout in 2004 glass as half empty (the proportion of all votes cast that came from young people was relatively unchanged at under 20%), or half full (the proportion of young people casting ballots increased significantly from 42.3 to 51%), survey evidence indicates that rather than turning out in response to Rock the Vote, or offers from Michael Moore to do their laundry while they voted, young people were mainly driven to the polls by their interest in issues like the Iraq War. This time around, concerns about the economy may well drive turnout among cash-strapped young people who are either starting or getting ready to start their careers.

To be sure, as the CNN video clip points out, in this election season, youth issue voting and campaigns for the youth vote will go hand in hand, just as they did in 2004. But it is also worth considering how these things fit together in the broader context of prior elections and races for lesser offices. As also discussed in Burstein'€™s 18 in 08, there is a curious chicken-and-egg relationship implicated here. In prior years, people have speculated that more young people would vote if politicians and candidates simply paid more attention to them. Others have pointed to relatively low turnout rates among younger voters compared to older groups as the primary explanation for the lack of attention from politicians.

Given that both major candidates are clearly courting the youth vote aggressively this year, it will be interesting to see how these dynamics play out, and what role younger voters (such as many of you reading this blog) will play.