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?

Senate Vacancies (again) and the contours of Federalism

by David Watkins

Last year (Here, and again here) I wrote about the puzzling politics of replacing Senators mid-term, Hillary Clinton, Ken Salazar, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all left their Senate seats for the executive Branch. A little known quirk of the American political system became quite prominent: quite unlike the House of Representatives (where seats remain vacant until a special election is held), vacant seats are replaced in the Senate in a number of diverse that sometimes involve special elections and gubernatorial appointments (sometimes with restrictions, sometimes without) and combinations of the two. This curious diversity is a product of the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct election of Senators:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

In recent months, the Senate vacancy issue has become prominent again. Just days before his death, the ailing Ted Kennedy wrote a letter (which can be read here) to lawmakers in Massachusetts encouraging them to make an alteration to existing law. The 2004 law, which he supported, requires a solution to Senate vacancies similar to House elections--no gubernatorial appointments, and a special election held 145-160 days after the vacancy was created. Kennedy's suggested alteration was for a placeholder appointment (who would not be eligible to run). Kennedy wished to retain the democratic spirit of the 2004 law, without depriving Massachusetts of what could turn out to be a crucial vote on a health care reform bill in the next few months. Critics accused him of trying to change the rules of the game to suit his short term political interests. The Massachusetts legislature is still considering acting on Kennedy's request.

Meanwhile, in Florida (where vacancies are filled by gubernatorial appointment) popular Republican Governor Charlie Crist was given the opportunity to appoint the replacement for Senator Mel Martinez, who retired early. It was long known that Martinez had no plans to run for reelection in 2010, but his sudden retirement was a surprise. Crist did have the legal ability to appoint himself, and is widely believed to be contemplating a run for the Senate himself, so arguably this situation may have produced a conflict of interest (although not necessarily a favorable one, as Nate Silver argues here). In the end he appointed George LeMieux, his former campaign aide who will be sworn in tomorrow.

Frustrated with this state of affairs, Senator Russ Feingold has proposed a constitutional amendment to end the practice of Gubernatorial appointments and make special elections the law of the nation. In doing so, he's arguably pitted one central value of American politics (electoral control of legislators, government of, by and for the people) against another (federalism). It might be reasonable to argue that federalism in this case makes less sense than, say, governing education or criminal prosecutions locally, but on the other hand, unlike virtually every other state, we leave the administration of elections to local governance. 

Given the high bar Constitutional amendments must pass, Feingold is unlikely to be successful. Nevertheless, it raises interesting questions about the purpose and proper boundaries of federal variation. When considering the appropriate scope and boundaries of local and federal jurisdiction, it is sometimes too easy to let the constitution (or our favorite interpretive strategy of the constitution) do our thinking for us. Beyond the general good of adherence to the constitution, what principle or practical concern (if any) justify the status quo? Is Feingold's proposed amendment worthy of support, or an intrusive interference in local governance?

PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS

By Scott Lemieux

I scoffed when some friends and colleagues speculated after Sarah Palin's well-received convention speech could have a major effect on the campaign in her running mate's favor.   I also scoffed when some people I talked to claimed that Palin's much less well-received television interviews would be devastating to her ticket.   The reason was simple.   To oversimplify only slightly, political science research suggests that vice presidential choices have little effect on election outcomes.   Indeed, despite what the priorities of media coverage might imply, campaigns as a whole have only a marginal effect on election outcomes (which can be explained with considerable accuracy by a few external factors, most notably whether the candidate in an incumbent and the condition of the economy.)  History suggests the vice presidential choices might increase the chances that a candidate will win a running mate's home state, and otherwise matter very little.   And since Palin came from 1)a small state that 2)was already solidly Republican, McCain's choice figured to have a negligible effect.

John Sides at the Monkey Cage, however, points us to a fascinating analysis of the 2008 campaign suggesting that I may have been wrong to dismiss the potential impact of a Palin pick so quickly.   Political scientist Richard Johnston (author of the seminal study in voting behavior Letting the People Decide) and Emily Thorson (blogger as well as political scientist), have found data suggesting that the Palin choose may well have had a substantial impact on the 2008 election.  Tracing McCain's approval ratings, the argue that it was Palin, not the economy, that explain's McCain's losing margin:

The failure of the economy to move the campaign is a puzzle in its own right. Election after election shows that perceptions of the economy are a crucial force shaping vote preference. Why then did events as terrifying as the meltdown not translate into electoral decisions? And if the meltdown did not drive the dynamics of the campaign, what did?

We think the answer to this question starts with Sarah Palin, and we base this judgment on the level of detail made possible by the NAES. John McCain’s August 29 announcement of Palin as his running mate surprised the Republican establishment, the media, and especially voters. She made a strong first impression: she enjoyed high approval ratings after her acceptance speech, and the percentage of voters saying that they intended to vote Republican skyrocketed. But within days of the speech, her ratings began a precipitous slide from which she—and the McCain campaign—never recovered. Throughout the rest of the campaign, vote intentions were closely tied to Palin’s approval ratings: each major Palin approval drop was followed, within a day or two, by a drop in McCain vote intention. No other factor moved McCain support with such precision. Comparison of the correlation between running mate approval ratings and vote intentions from 2000 and 2004 confirms Palin’s peculiar importance in 2008.

Of course, as Johnston and Thorson acknowledge, the data is merely suggestive; it cannot prove that Palin had an unprecedented effect on the 2008 elections.   But, at the very least, it means that we cannot easily dismiss claims that vice presidential selections may be more consequential than past elections have suggested.   What this also means is that political scientists, when studying elections, always have to be modest in their conclusions, for an obvious reason: the relative rarity of presidential elections means that we have to draw conclusions based on relatively small samples, often encompassing very different historical eras.  Particularly given that there are many ambiguities in analyzing individual elections as well, it's important not to be too confident that past historical patterns will recur.    After all, even if the previous consensus of the research was correct, history can change.   Even if vice presidential choices had little impact in most past elections, they may matter more in the future for reasons we can't fully identify yet.

Online Petitions

by Laura McKenna

When I was a kid, the running joke was that dad always stole our black magic markers. We had every other color in our art kits, except for black. Why? Because dad used them to make protest signs. And then he would round up the three of us to march around in a circle with other people protesting something or another.

Before he was a marker-stealing dad, he attended civil rights marches and anti-war rallies in DC. He even had a confrontation with Dan Rather, because Rather chose to interview the long haired hippies at the rallies instead of the clean cut college kids, who were the majority of the protesters. Later, after we arrived, he got involved in local politics. He became involved in environmental policy and ran for office on a third party.

First Amendment Controversies, part II: The future of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act

By David Watkins

A few weeks ago Laura McKenna wrote about some controversial exceptions regarding the 1st amendment as it applies to freedom of the press. I'm following up today with a quick note about another ongoing first amendment controversy regarding political speech.

You've probably noticed the ubiquitous "I'm so-and-so and I approved this message" at the end of candidate radio and television advertisements. This is one of the many consequences of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, more commonly known as"McCain-Feingold" after its somewhat unlikely lead sponsors in the Senate. The purpose here is to make clearer and more obvious the distinction between a candidate's own words and message and other political messages. The fight over this bill was particularly intense in the Republican party, where many Republicans' opposition to the core ideas of this bill was particularly strong (McCain's championing of campaign finance reform is a significant contributing factor in his reputation as a "maverick" in the Senate).The bill almost immediately produced a legal challenge from Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. McConnell was following the precedent set by Jim Buckley, a congressmen who sued over a campaign finance bill in the 1970's.

In that case (Buckley vs. Valeo) the court upheld the law's restriction on individual contributions to political candidates. However, the court also ruled that spending money to attempt to influence the outcome of elections is a constitutionally protected act of political speech. In the BRCA, the phenomenon known as "issue ads" were not directly prohibited, but they were further regulated. Defined as "electioneering communications," these ads were now subject to numerous restrictions to limit their coordination with campaigns and impact on elections. The proximity of third party ads naming candidates were restricted, as were the entities permitted to fund them (corporate and union sponsorship of such ads, for instance, were restricted). McConnell was less successful than Buckley; the vast majority of the key provisions of the BRCA were upheld in the 2003 decision

However: the status quo is precarious. For one thing, the majority in McConnell vs. FEC was a bare 5-4 majority, and included the no-retired Sandra Day O'Connor. Her replacement, Samuel Alito, is much more likely to side with those who find these restrictions unconstitutional. In fact, a new case in which the BRCA's constitutionality was questioned was recently argued before the Supreme Court. The case involves the question of restrictions on the distribution of a 90 minute anti-Hillary Clinton documentary, and whether it could be distributed. The government's lawyers are arguing that the ability to restrict campaign advocacy materials extends beyond simple advertisements:

Several of the court’s more conservative justices reacted with incredulity to a series of answers from a government lawyer about the scope of Congressional authorityto limit political speech. The lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress has the power to ban political books, signs and Internet videos, if they are paid for by corporations and distributed not long before an election.

Mr. Stewart added that there was no difference in principle between the 90-minute documentary about Mrs. Clinton, “Hillary: The Movie,” and a 30-second television advertisement.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedysaid the government’s uncompromising position could have dire consequences for the McCain-Feingold law....

“Hillary: The Movie,” a documentary with elements of polemic and advocacy journalism, was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation. It was released during the Democratic presidential primaries last year, and a lower court said it could not be broadcast within 30 days of those elections.

(full story here)

We'll have to wait for the decision to come down, but based on oral arguments it seems possible that the legal interpretation of the relationship between protected political speech and political advocacy in campaigns may change again. But whatever the court decides in this case, the controversy isn't going away. There are a number of difficult questions swirling around this debate, including: What is the relationship between 1st amendment protected political speech, and money spent to disseminate that message, and the strategic targeting of those messages for elections? Should money spent of the dissemination of speech be subject to more regulation than the speech itself? Should proximity matter? If we allow money spent on political speech to go largely unregulated on first amendment grounds, will the political ideas and perspectives of those without much money be crowded out?

Senate Vacancies

By David Watkins

The big news in American Politics today is obviously the arrest and charging of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich on a host of corruption charges. Blagojevich has been under federal investigation for some time. Amongst other charges, Blagojevich is accused of threatening to withhold state assistance for the sale of Wrigley stadium by the owners of the stadium, The Chicago Tribune company, unless some members of the editorial board critical of the governor were fired. Obviously, this kind of abuse of power is a big deal, and a direct threat to the ideal of a free and independent press.

This part of the story, important as it is, is almost certainly going to be overlooked in light of the charges that Blagojevich was attempting to, in essence, sell a Senate seat. Barack Obama's six year Senate term has two years remaining. Blagojevich, as Illinois governor, has the right to appoint someone to fill that seat for the remainder of the term. The full text of the criminal complaint is available here. One this subject, the colorful Blagojevich is reported to have said:

“unless I get something real good for [Senate Candidate 1], s**t, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying....And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.”  Later, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that the Senate seat “is a f**king valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the open seat but "they're not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F**k them."

Setting aside the ethics and the law for a moment, Blagojevich is certainly correct about one thing--the senate seat he has the power to appoint is a valuable commodity indeed. It's just for two years, initially, but as all students of American politics know, incumbency advantage is a powerful thing, and his appointee, as a Democrat, would have a particularly strong advantage in Illinois, an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Under normal circumstances, it takes the most talented and popular politicians millions of dollars and a fair amount of luck to win a seat in the US Senate.

If you find it odd that we'd give this kind of power to a single person, you're not alone. In both the United States and Democratic countries around the world, the norm is to hold special elections to fill mid-term vacancies in legislative bodies. The House of Representatives follows this norm. In the US Senate, however, things are different. The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution governs Senate Vacancies:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

State legislatures have responded in a variety of different ways. Oregon and Wisconsin do not empower the governor to fill vacancies: they require special elections to fill the seat. Other states place restrictions on who the governor can appoint to fill the seat--by requiring them to fill the seat with someone of the same party as the departing senator (Hawaii, Alaska, Arizona) or by allowing the Governor to choose between three individuals put forth by the state legislature (Utah, Wyoming). More about the different ways states approach this issue can be found here. Dick Durbin, the sole Senator from Illinois, suggested this morning that the Illinois legislature "enact a law as quickly as possible calling for a special election to fill the Senate vacancy of Barack Obama."

What explains this unusual state of affairs? The 17th amendment, ratified in 1913, is mostly known for mandating the direct election of Senators. Previously, the selection of Senators was governed by Article one, section 3 of the Constitution, which granted the power to appoint Senators to the state legislatures. In essence, the current patchwork of policies governing interim appointments are a holdover from an era in which the Senate was not meant to be a democratic body. Today, the idea that the Senate should be selected through democratic process is widely accepted (although some conservative proponents of "states rights," notably former Georgia Senator Zell Miller, argue for its repeal), but many undemocratic features of the Senate remain. The Blagojevich corruption scandal reminds us of the potential costs to the alternatives of democratic decision-making.

In my "Citizenship and US Politics" course this term, we spent some time debating the case for abolishing the US Senate. Of course, this is a profoundly unrealistic goal, as it's very difficult to imagine a supermajority of US Senators, let alone the small states that benefit from overrepresentation in the US Senate, agreeing to this idea. Nevertheless, it's an interesting exercise to try to defend the Senate on principled grounds. The students who were assigned to argue for keeping the Senate found it more difficult than they had anticipated.

  

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.

Election Day, Laura's Perspective

It's an exciting day. After my children came home from school, we walked to the local middle school to cast my vote. I took both boys, aged 6 and 9, into the booth with me and had them take turns pushing the buttons. It was an important little bit of political socialization. I was teaching them that voting is important, that is relatively easy to do, and that it is an important duty we have as American citizens. Hopefully, by taking them with me today, they will grow up to be voters and participators.

After we voted, we walked to the local Starbucks for free coffee. (Well, coffee for me. Milk and rainbow cookies for the boys.)

What was your voting experience like?

The polls seem to be pointing towards a win for Obama today. (Check out Scott's links.) But there are still many unanswered questions. By tomorrow, I hope to have more answers. Here's what is on my mind:

• Will there be a Bradley effect?
• Will there be an uncharacteristically high turnout by traditional low voters? Will the youth vote and black vote actually happen? Will this mean a permanent and lasting change in their voting behavior?
• What's next for Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber? Dancing with the Stars?
• Will dirty tricks suppress voter turnout in some areas?
• What is the impact of new media on the 2008 election? (Huge. A future post will explain.)
• Will the Obama momentum push out Republican incumbents in Congress?
• What am I going to serve guests at my election party? Answer: Martinis and chicken wings.

Election Day

By Scott Lemieux

It's the big day in American politics!   If you want to get a sense of what public opinion surveys are saying about the election, you can check out aggregations of polls at FiveThirtyEight, Pollster, RealClearPolitics, and ElectoralVote.com.   There are differences among the polls, not because some major pollsters are incompetent, but because election polls require making assumptions about things that are unknowable.   In particular, we can quite accurately determine how a population as a whole will vote, but a great deal depends on who turns out to vote.   Pollsters see the election outcome differently because they make different assumptions about who will vote, but there's no way to know this for sure in advance.   In addition, the Presidential election is determined not by the national popular vote, but by the electoral college. State polls are generally more volatile and less reliable than national polls, so figuring out who will win a close state is more difficult. 

At any rate, it will be interesting to see what happens, as always!   We will be back to analyze the results.

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.