2008 primaries

Updated at 3:40pm to reflect additional state returns.

Updated at 12:30 to reflect changes to the exit polling.

CIRCLE still has not posted results from Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Deleware, and New Mexico. And there seems to be no data at all available for all four of the Super Tuesday states that employed election day registration (Alaska, Idaho, Minnesota and North Dakota). But here's what we know so far about yesterday's youth turnout.

It was up, and in some states up big.

Youth turnout quadrupled in Tennessee. It tripled in Georgia, Missouri and Oklahoma, and it doubled in Massachusetts. There were, however, some states that didn't fare so well. In New York, youth turnout flatlined while turnout for the 30+ demographics dropped by 10 points, creating a net decline in voter turnout in the state.

As a share of the Democratic electorate, young voters increased their share in every state for which comparable data is available.

In most states, that increased turnout was to the advantage of Barack Obama, who won the youth vote in 13 12 of the 15 states for which data is currently available. The margin by which Obama carried young voters in those states varied wildly. In some states, like Georgia, he maintained his towering advantage over Clinton among young voters, and in Missouri, where he won by a mere 10,000 votes, young voters may well have been the difference in his campaign. In other states, though, like California, Clinton cut that advantage down to just a few points. Clinton actually won California. Guess the CNN exit polls are still adjusting.

Regardless of which candidate carries the nomination next month, that increased turnout will be a big advantage for Democrats in the general election. In Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York and Tennessee combined, 458,000 more young people voted in the Democratic contest than the Republican. The actual amount varied widely from state to state with Connecticut at the low end (~19,000 more Democratic youth participants) and New York at the high end (~203,000 more).

The one exception to this rule thus far was Oklahoma, in which 10,000 more young voters participated in the Republican primary than the Democratic primary.

All the data available thus far on youth turnout is pulled together in the chart below.

A quick word on methodology and data sets. In the chart below, the share of the electorate data and the turnout data come from two different sources (CNN and CIRCLE, respectively).

The Share of the Electorate data represents the youth vote share of the Democratic electorate - not the statewide electorate as a whole. The data on turnout represents total youth turnout across the state - both Democratic and Republican voters combined.

If you write about this or cite it, don't mix the apples and the oranges.

Turnout in the Democratic Primary in South Carolina almost tripled yesterday. According to CIRCLE, 74,245 young voters went to the polls, 19 percent of eligible young voters. In 2004, only 26,181 voters aged 18 to 29 participated. As a share of the electorate, young voters made up 14 percent of the electorate, an increase of 5 percent over the previous cycle.

It's no surprise that once again young people voted for Obama in overwhelming numbers. According to CNN exit polling, young voters chose Obama 68 - 23 percent. These numbers were fairly consistent through all age demographics in the state, the notable exception being those 65+, who cast their ballots for Clinton.

Apropos of my last post, it looks like race was not a factor among younger voters, or rather, the vote did not break down along racial lines. What little polling I could find before the primary seemed to indicate that the debate over race in the media had little effect on Clinton and Obama's support among young black and white voters. Turns out that debate likely drove many young voters - white and black - towards Obama and his post-racial message.

Among African American voters aged 18 - 24, Obama won 79 to 19 percent. Among 25 - 29 year olds that number was even higher at 83 to 16 percent. But Obama also won among young white voters, who voted for him 52 to 28 percent. Among that group it seems like some of Obama's victory may be due to the fact that John Edwards did surprisingly well among young white voters, capturing 20 percent of their vote, his highest numbers yet.

Once again, the number of young people voting in the Democratic contest far outpaced that of Republicans. Only 44,320 young voters participated in the Republican primary held last week, and they made up only 10 percent of the Republican electorate.

As youth turnout has continued to rise in each contest, the pundits are sitting up and taking notice, and something of a new conventional wisdom seems to be forming. As I type this, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd just gave young voters props on Meet the Press, and here's Tim Russert last night:

If you are going to be a successful candidate in November as a Democratic candidate you cannot win with just hard core white Democratic voters. You need young voters to come into the Democratic fold to transform states like Florida…or Ohio. You need to broaden the base of the Democratic Party.

I would argue that this was true even in 2004 and 2006. In both of those elections, young voters were strong supporters for Democrats, and in both of those elections young voter turnout increased. Nevertheless, it is good to see young voters participating and getting their due.

Next up is Super Tuesday, when young voters in 22 states will have the opportunity - for the first time in a long time - in helping to decide the Democratic nominee. We're going to get a much better picture as to the potential impact of young voters in the General Election after February 5th.

A new report by The Century Foundation takes all of the CIRCLE, YVS and Green/Gerber research from the last 7 years, rolls it up into a ball, and throws out a terrific summary of what's happened with the youth vote in the last 4 years. Campaign staffers looking to convince their boss that young voters are worth the time and effort should carry this report with them at all times, because it's one of the best summaries I've seen (and highly readable at only 11 pages).

Of interest to me were the stats on youth turnout and share of the population in the early primary states.

Here's where we stand. In 2004, young voters made up somewhere around 1/5 of the primary electorate in the early states. In Iowa, youth turnout in the caucuses quadrupled (pdf) in 2004, and 18-29 year olds constituted a larger share of the electorate than 30-44 year olds. In New Hampshire, young voters also increased their primary turnout (at pace with the rest of the electorate). In three of the first primary states, youth participation in the general election increased substantially in 2004 and in 2006.

All the signs point towards a continuation of that trend - we have a youth electorate that is more engaged than previous generations at this point in the cycle, a competitive primary with two exciting candidates that are picking up youth support, and a general election that many see as one of the most important in their lifetime. Additionally, young voters are more likely than ever to participate in a Democratic primary or caucus. 58% of young voters (pdf) identify as Democrats vs. 36% Republican and only 6% Independent. Because Iowa and Nevada both have same-day registration, and New Hampshire allows unaffiliated voters to participate in either primary, upwards of 64% of all young people who vote in January might be participating in the Democratic primary/caucus.

What does this mean? Young people will have a larger say in who our nominee is than at any point in recent history. Seeing how the Millennial Generation will be bigger than the Baby Boom when all is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised to see young voters comprise 1/4 of the primary electorate in some of the early states this year. And here's the other thing: because they're more likely to lack a land-line telephone, most of these kids are not getting included in the polling of Iowa and New Hampshire that we're seeing. Yeah. 20-25% of the electorate is unaccounted for in most of the polling we're seeing.

What does that translate into for the candidates? That is less clear. Obama is polling higher at the number 1 choice for young voters, but Hillary pulls ahead when you add first and second choice - an important point in Nevada and Iowa, where many candidates will be declared "non-viable," forcing voters to their second choice. It's also correcting for RT Strategies decision to muck up the results by including Gore in their poll.

If Hillary is pulling a lot of that huge 19 point jump in support from Gore, then Obama is in trouble, as it eliminates one of the few advantages he is perceived to hold over the other candidates. At that point, it will come down to organization. Can he more effectively organize his youth support to maintain a respectable finish in Iowa and gain momentum moving into Nevada and New Hampshire?

In this, the clock is also against Obama. The Both the Nevada and Iowa caucuses are currently scheduled after the start of the school year - essentially clumping all of his support into a few campuses - less useful in a caucus than in a primary where sheer numbers matter, not geographic dispersal of support (here Hillary also holds an advantage as her youth support is less from college students than from non-college).

Edwards also gets a significant bump when 2nd choices are considered. Again, I wonder if he's pulling that from Gore, or if he's playing second fiddle to some Obama and Clinton supporters. It's an interesting scenario, especially given the way the race is shaping up in Iowa, which will largely dictate what happens in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. Unfortunately, we can't get much more clarity without knowing more about what young Iowa voters think or what role Gore is really playing as spoiler in the polling data.

Raw data on the February 5th primary states provided after the jump.

With Labor Day weekend past, schools all over the country are back in full session, barbecues are being stowed safely away from fall rains, and it's officially go time for presidential primary campaigns. The period between Labor Day and Thanksgiving is a hot and heavy one. In the next couple months, traditional media coverage will intensify and many citizens who have been ignoring the whole horserace -- or at best tracking headlines -- will start tuning in in earnest. Here are some things I'll be looking for:

Personnel Changes
As the campaign really heats up, we can expect some candidates to drop out. Those who have little cash on hand (Walnuts?) and are unable to gain traction in the polls will increasingly face questions as to how/why they're continuing to run. Those like Kucinich and Tancredo who have issues at the heart of their candidacies will stick with it to "change the debate." Others, like Joe "Running A Cabinet Position" Biden will face a more serious existential crisis.

Also, Fred Thompson will make his entry into the race official this week. With early buzz so far not mixing well with reality, Thompson's campaign reminds me more and more of Wes Clark's bid in 2003. Both were pitched as saviors of troubled parties and took off quickly in the polls. Clark crashed and burned when the participatory movement that drafted him into the race bucked and crumbled under the direction of an "official" campaign. Thompson has no such movement management problem, but his image-vs-reality issues may lead to a similarly messy meeting between the rubber and the road.

Gloves Coming Off
As media coverage drives name-recognition of all top-tier candidates into the 90th percentile, candidates looking to pick up support are increasingly going to have to look at who they can take it away from. At the polls, politics boils down to a zero sum game and those who win do so at the expense of those who lose. I expect more risky stances, more aggressive attacks, and of course the opening of mudslinging season, as campaigns in need start digging into their opposition research files, either directly or (see below) working through functionally-independent surrogates.

Frontrunners like Sen. Clinton will start taking serious incoming fire from multiple parties, but also look for 2nd and 3rd place candidates to try and pick off issue-based support from non-contending candidates, or to siphon off demographic support based on endorsements.

Independent Expenditures
This is about the time last cycle when "independent" operators started to make waves in the primary states. Remember the "Latte-sipping, volvo-driving liberal freakshow?" Expect more of that as interest groups enter the fray.

From the left, MoveOn and other groups have already run ads targeting members of congress, mostly tied to Iraq and Bush-support, but they may soon start setting their sites on Rudy McRomney and Hollywood Fred. Now is the time for opponents to define one-another's public perception, and those playing the long game are already looking at how this primary season will set the stage for next November's final showdown. In the end, there can be only one.

Shake It Up!
All in all, I'm hoping the increased pressure will shake up what has been a relatively stagnant race. I'm also curious to see who (if anyone) makes a strong play for (or possibly against!) the Millennial generation as a homestretch maneuver. I'll have more on that soon.

What are you looking/hoping for?

Update II: So people tell me that yes, the amount of delegates per precinct is fixed, and loading up highly populated precincts is worthless. Making the answer to my question and emphatic NO. In fact, an earlier caucus probably helps the Obama campaign as it would spread their support across the state, and young Iowans who leave the state to attend school would be home at their parents' houses.

Update: I posted this in a couple places, and I'm getting pushback that the earlier caucus would be a boon to Obama because his support would be spread across the state - more valuable in a caucus than in a primary. I confess to not being able to wrap my head around the intricacies of the caucus process. So I'm basically unable to determine whether that is true or not. It strikes me that it could be true. But also that it would be valuable for the youth vote to tip a few highly populated precincts/districts Obama's way and for the campaign to rely on their other constituencies in more rural districts. Frankly I don't know.
------------------------------------------

It appears that our shifting primary schedule may be throwing a wrench into the gears of the Obama turnout strategy.

Right now, the Iowa Caucus is set for Monday, January 14th. I was listening to The Gabfest - Slate's political podcast - this morning, and heard that January 14th, which is a Monday, doubles as the first day of classes for most Iowa universities. That's great for Obama - it means that lots of out-of-state kids are back at school and eligible to vote in the Caucus. It means that tens of thousands of potential supporters are centrally located in a few hubs across the state. It makes the turnout game that much easier for Barack in a race where he needs to at least come in second if he's to blunt Hillary's momentum.

If the caucus is moved up to earlier in the year, however - a likely possibility - Obama's Iowa strategy becomes MUCH harder to execute. Thousands of potential supporters won't even be in the state - they'll be at their parent's house celebrating the New Year and packing up for next semester. Those that are in-state will be scattered across the plains and will require much more work to turnout.

I'm sure the decision to move (or not) the caucus will be made with plenty of time to spare for campaigns to adjust their strategy, but either way you shake it, an earlier primary looks like bad news for Obama and good news for Edwards or Hillary, who are relying on older constituencies to deliver the votes.

This afternoon I'll be live blogging from ACORN's presidential forum, which is being held in the best city in America-- Philadelphia (hey, stop laughing, before I show you what we mean by "Brotherly Love"- think older brothers and noogies). Only three of the candidates--Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich-- are attending, but it still should be an interesting time.

The forum will be webcast on ACORN's site, and there will be a number of other bloggers there as well, including a few from some of the bigger liberal political blogs. For a full list of bloggers check ACORN's Candidate's Forum blog.

Update: there's no wireless here, and typing too much on my blackberry kills my thumbs, so I won't be able to really write much. It's packed here, and after a long wait and lots of call and answers/chants, Hillary just came on.didn't take long for the first screaming nut to start, and nobody is stopping him. This is really weird. Now they're trying to talk to him. And now, after two or three awkward minutes, he's leaving, screaming and singing all the way.

Update 2: I just left the Forum, after listening to Hillary's speech and the Q&A session. The Senetor from New York gave a really impassioned speech which was met by loud cheers, though I have to say that every time I hear Hillary talk about health care or a living wage or predatory lending (hello bankruptcy bill!). The more I see, the less I like, though I still think she'd be a formidable Democratic candidate, and she definitely shares her husband's ability to work a crowd

Either way, there was just no way I was going to wait around for Kucinich and then stand for an hour while he speaks, and I heard Edwards speak two weeks ago.

Update 3: Edwards just finished, and as usual I really like what he has to say about issues effecting the poor and working class in America. He didn't seem to get the same amount of cheering and applause as Hillary, though it could have been some combination of the fact that he went on over 3 hours after the event began and the cheering could be a lot less audible over the interwebs, but I was really surprised that ACORN member aren't going gaga over a guy who seems to be running mainly on their issues. I did think that Edwards statement that "I don't need to read your position papers... Because they're already my positions!" was a bit clumsily worded, and in general his orating abilities aren't at the same level as Clinton or Obama, but I definitely think he has more substance than either of them.

As I noted in last Friday's Around the Tubes, Senetor Chris Dodd (D-CT), who is running for President, announced his National Service Agenda this weekend, and I am impressed.

Here are some of the plan's highlights:

• Promote the Corporation for National Service (CNS) to Cabinet Status. Through Executive Order, in a Dodd Administration, the Executive Director of the Corporation for National Service will be part of the Cabinet.

• Mandate School-Based Service as a Requirement for High School Graduation. Under the Dodd plan, every student in America will be required to perform 100 hours of community-based service prior to high school graduation.
• Double the Size of the Peace Corps by 2011 and Again by 2050. As President, Chris Dodd will double the number of Peace Corps volunteers, expand the number of countries in which volunteers are stationed and provide opportunities for Peace Corps volunteers to serve in their local communities when they return home.
• Dramatically increase the number of AmeriCorps Members to 1,000,000 and immediately raise the amount of the education award.. The Dodd plan will significantly increase the number of AmeriCorps volunteers and will annually increase the education award to reflect the skyrocketing cost of tuition.
• Create a Rapid Response Reserve Corps. Dodd's Rapid Response Reserve Corps will mobilize national service program alumni, as well as retired military and National Guard personnel, to respond to national disasters.

This plan is (imo) great for many reasons. First of all, as we like to point out on this site on a regular basis: young people are not apathetic, disengaged, slackers who are unwilling to do selfless work Instead, young people are volunteering in record numbers, but they do sometimes lack access to meaningful programs. We also have a great amount of need in our communities for the energy and excitement young people bring to civic project, and so this seems like a perfect way to engage young people and help our communities at the same time.

Second, I obviously think that it is extremely important for politicians to enact legislation that makes a positive impact on young people's lives and if Democrats want to ride the wave of youth interest in, and engagement of, the political process they're going to have to take the lead. Senator Dodd seems genuinely concerned about the problems facing young people and I really hope that youth focused groups bring attention to the legislation that Dodd is pushing for, which can give younger voters a reason to vote.

I really think that the focus on patriotism and working to improve our communities and our nation, rather than an overtly partisan appeal, is both effective and needed. Most young people who are volunteering do so to help out others and/or feel like a part of something bigger, and this type of appeal should resonate broadly and cut through the cynicism that I assume some feel when they hear political appeals like this. I personally always dreamed of joining the Peace Corps or doing some form of national service, but the opportunities never seemed real enough. I also feel a great pride in my community and my nation, and I would have (and still would) love to show that love by giving back in some non-military fashion. While I usually flinch at attempts to move past partisanship, when it comes to doing something that helps the greater good I believe that most people can agree to come together and work to make things better. (Please don't queue kumbaya )

What separates this plan, imo, from John Edward's OneCorps is that Edward's site focuses a little too much on the candidate and not enough on the overall mission,. This is one reason why I'd guess there aren't many young people pictured on the OneCorps site, and it's definitely the reason that I never really considered working through OneCorps.

There's a lot more to discuss about Dodd's plan, and about the virtues of national service in general, but I'll have to leave it for now. What do you think about this plan?

Below is the video of Dodd's announcement, the text can be found here.

Presidential debates targeted at youth have a checkered history. In 1992, Clinton famously appealed to young voters with his appearance in an MTV/Rock the Vote debate where he answered that most substantive of policy questions - "Boxers or Briefs?" Then in 2004, at a Democratic forum, CNN and Rock the Vote again cut to the quick of current policy debates by asking a detailed question about the role of technology in our lives - "Mac or PC?"

It's that time again. 25 youth organizers/organizations (myself included) are getting together to push Democratic candidates to participate in a pre-primary forum addressing issues that concern the Millennial Generation. Rock the Vote will again be the sponsor of the debate, and broadcast partner is still TBD.

It's easy to be cynical about this, considering past incarnations, but this is an important media event that will reach millions of eyeballs. Considering the state of television and print journalism today, it may be the only chance to give a mass audience of Millennials a substantive look at the candidates beyond the simple caricatures the media has established.

There are a lot of ways that these debates could be improved upon. CNN/YouTube are sponsoring their own debate that will consist primarily of questions submitted via YouTube. That's an interesting model that may help to democratize the Q&A process and avoid the "overframing" that plagued the CNN debate in '04. I've always enjoyed the IRC back-channel talks at conferences like PDF - maybe some sort of running commentary could be given prominent coverage online or in the "crawl" . . . ?

Y'all are a smart bunch that read this site - what ways do you see new media potentially creating a more substantive and engaging debate? Something that our generation will not just watch (and hopefully participate in), but also walk away from a more informed and energized voter? Something you won't want to mock or be indifferent to the day after.

What issues would you like to see addressed that aren't being looked at by the media (aka, how do we make this about more than the cost of John Edwards' haircut)? I can think of a couple that I'd like to see:

• Where do the candidates stand on Net Neutrality what actions would they take as president to protect it?
• Nail down Barack Obama on some policy specifics w/r/t Global Warming and Health Care. Knock him off his rhetoric and into the real world for a bit.
• Get Hillary to talk honestly about her plan for Iraq - long-term bases, troop deployment, the role of diplomacy, etc.
• Get them to commit to supporting national election reforms that help more young people vote - affirming residency on campus, same day registration, mail-in voting, etc.
• Talk about how they plan to make college affordable and alleviate the massive debt the young people must assume to enter the middle class.

It's still early in the process of figuring out the structure and content of this debate, and you've actually got a a chance to have some input into that process. So what would you like to see? What potential pitfalls need to be avoided at all costs?

Below the jump I've included the letter that was sent to the Democratic campaigns urging them to participate (this version was addressed Sen. Edwards). Give it a read, and if you are a progressive leader, or run a youth organization and want to lend your support, send me an email and I'll connect you to the right folks.

First, check out YouTube on YouTube's role in politics:

Then, check out two more quick links:

• With the primaries rapidly approaching, and student loan scandals spilling out of control, I thought I'd bring back this little nugget of policy information: the highest amount of student debt per capita can be found in Iowa and New Hampshire (pdf).

  • The average debt for all four-year college graduates (a weighted average
    combining both public and private non-profit institutions) ranges from a high of
    $22,793 in New Hampshire to a low of $11,709 in Utah.
  • Statewide average debt for seniors graduating from public universities ranges
    from $23,198 in Iowa to $11,067 in Utah.
  • At private, non-profit universities, statewide averages range much higher, from
    $32,504 in Arizona down to $13,309 in Utah.

  Which Presidential candidates can make hay out of that? Does it matter, or is policy irrelevant in the Democratic Primary?