BY ROBYNN TYSVER
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER
COUNCIL BLUFFS - A new generation of young people who came of age after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks appears to be massing into a powerful voting bloc in 2008.
A crowd filled with exuberant young people cheers for presidential hopeful Barack Obama at the Iowa Events Center's Hy-Vee Hall in Des Moines after he won the Democratic caucuses in Iowa on Jan. 3.The generation that some are calling "Millennials" proved instrumental in Democrat Barack Obama's victory in the Iowa caucuses.
And in New Hampshire last week, voter turnout among people younger than 30 more than doubled from 2004.
These young men and women say the Iraq war, health care and the economy are driving them to the caucuses and primaries. Many say they are looking for candidates who are authentic and devoid of "political spin."
Thirteen percent of eligible Iowans younger than 30 participated in the caucuses. Obama won the backing of 57 percent of young Democratic caucusgoers.
The youth turnout in New Hampshire was 43 percent. Most of those young people voted in the Democratic primary. Obama won support from 45 percent and Hillary Clinton scooped up 31 percent.
If the trends in Iowa and New Hampshire continue, the number of young people who cast ballots this November could approach the record - 55.4 percent - set in 1972, when 18-year-olds were given their first chance to vote in a presidential election.
Rock the Vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1972, the first time 18-year-olds could vote, candidates have tried to woo young voters to the polls. Here's a sampling of the more recent efforts:
1992
Rock the Vote, established two years earlier by members of the recording industry, helps register 350,000 young voters. The presidential election sees a 20 percent increase in youth turnout compared with 1988.
2000
SmackDown Your Vote is launched by the World Wrestling Federation as part of a bipartisan effort to get young voters to the polls. Rock the Vote helps create Rap the Vote 2000, and hip-hop stars urge young people to "Register. Vote. Represent." In the closes presidential election of modern times, George W. Bush and Al Gore split the votes of those ages 18 to 29.
2004
During one televised presidential debate, thousands of questions are submitted via wireless devices and the Internet. Four years later, debate questions are submitted via YouTube.
2008
All the major candidates have pages on Facebook, an Internet-based social networking site, and use text messaging to reach young voters.The youth turnout in presidential elections had a mostly steady drop until 1992 when, aided by the recording industry's Rock the Vote campaign, 52 percent turned out. Bill Clinton has said the youth vote helped him win the White House that year.
But experts caution that the youth vote seen in the primaries and caucuses this year may evaporate. Young voters can never be taken for granted - as Democrat Howard Dean learned in 2004, when his youth wave failed to materialize in the Iowa caucuses.
And turnout among older voters continued to surpass young voters in both Iowa and New Hampshire.
Many of the young voters have friends in uniform overseas.
Josh Gottschalk, 27, of Minden, Iowa, a member of the Army National Guard, has friends serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A Republican, he caucused for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee because of Huckabee's support for the war and his anti-abortion views.
"If we go over there and pull out and 3,000 of our friends died, then they died for nothing," Gottschalk said.
Danielle Mocha, a 19-year-old from Honey Creek, Iowa, said she understands that America may need to keep some troops in Iraq for several years, but she wants the war to end.
Mocha is a Democrat, still deciding between Clinton and Obama. She likes Clinton's experience, but Obama inspires her. She's a student at Iowa Western Community College and had to work on caucus night.
"Hillary has a really good health care plan and Barack is like a new, fresh, nice guy who looks like he can change (the country) a lot," Mocha said.
Issues are not the only thing leading young people to vote. Political candidates are becoming more savvy at targeting youths.
All the major candidates have pages on Facebook, a social networking Web site, to connect candidates' supporters with each other and inform young people about candidates' views.
Candidates also send volunteers to places where young people are known to congregate, including coffee shops, laundries and bars.
The Young Voter Pact sent 56,000 text messages to young people in Iowa and 96,000 text messages to young people in New Hampshire, urging them to vote, said Jane Fleming Kleeb, 34, an organizer for the Democratic group.
"Basically, you have to target young people where they live and where they hang out," said Kleeb, who lives in Hastings, Neb.
Past efforts by candidates to ride a wave of young voters to victory have often met with failure. As a group, youths are notoriously tough to get to the polls. They often are consumed with getting jobs and working their way through college.
They are transient, forgetting to register to vote when they go off to college or a new job.
In 1972, the youth vote was expected to help Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern, an opponent of the Vietnam War, in his bid for the White House.
Even though record numbers of youths voted, McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon.
22 comments:
Voting is a right and I feel that more people need to do it. We have so many people complaining about the state our country is in right now(even though it is not bad at all compared to every other nation). Many of the people complaining did not even vote in the past elections. If you do not even care enough to go out to vote then you shouldn't even bother trying to voice your opinions when things don't turn out your way. I'm registered to vote and will surely do so in the upcoming elections.
It is unclear how much the youth vote will affect upcoming elections but the least people can do is go out to vote. The youth vote might very well make a difference in deciding who wins the primaries between Obama and Clinton.
Although voting is very important, no one should be forced into it. If someone chooses not to vote, then they probably don't care enough to do so , in which they should not have to vote because they would probably just vote for some random canidate, which isn't helping the cause. Voting is a right which means you have the right to choose not to vote. It's your decision and no one elses. I do agree that people who don't vote should not complain about the results, however it's not necessary to have the votes of thoes who don't care.
I think the youth getting involved politically is a good thing because we are the future of this country. If we practice now, and are aware of world events adn issues, the better we will be prepared to run the country in the coming years. I will be 18 this september, and i plan on voting.
In my opinion, youth getting involved with politics is great. For years i've heard many friends say " we dont have a say in legislature and such", but now the time has come where we can finally make an impact on those candidates, which in the end can lead to political success for young americans. senior citizens care about healthcare. oil companies care about trade prices and shipping. democratic blue collar workers worry about welfare. young americans worry about there say. lets get it done.
and by the way im for huckabee. he has a great idea on income tax, where it is completely dropped, and instead everyday goods are taxed more heavily, but based on your bracket, you get more money in return. HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT!
I cannot vote in this election and I am mad. I have a job pay that darn social security tax that won't benefit me 60 years from now. I am not being fully represented because I cannot vote for who represents me. Just like back in the 1770's: No taxation without representation. I should be allowed to vote since I am working (and the government knows I am working because they are taking me).
So I guess since I cannot vote, I'll just say who I hope becomes the president. I am ok with either McCain or Huckabee. They want to help our troops in Iraq. They overall want to lower taxes, though their ideas of how to do it is different. (As long as taxes are lower, I'm happy.)
I like the calm and sincereness of McCain. When he answered his questions at the debates, it was calm and sincere. It was like he was saying, "Everything is alright. We can handle it together." It was soothing. He knew what he was talking about too. He is not afraid to be different of the Republican party either. I admire his political courage. I bet if JFK was still around, he would have put McCain into his book. Not a doubt passes through my mind.
I like Huckabee because of what he wants to do with the fine arts departments. He wants more emphasis on the fine arts in schools. He wants everyone to be involved and wants to fund it.
As far as my opinions on Iraq are, I support it. I think Iraq can be compared to when we were little kids and played. We made messes with our toys. But it was fun. Likewise, It was fun sending in our F-18's and bomb the snot out of Iraq and have our tanks roll in. But we all know, whenever we make a mess, we need to clean it up. We all know that cleaning messes is not fun. We feel it's a waste of time, but we still have to do it. Right now, that is what we are doing. We are cleaning after ourselves and we do not like it. The people are whining and complaining. No matter what, that mess better be cleaned up or else it hurts. (I am not saying we are actually playing in Iraq. You do not play in wars, you win them.)
We are in a tough situation in Iraq I feel. Iraqis apparently do not want us there. And if we leave, they will no doubt say that we abandoned them. Then it makes us look bad. We may-as-well just stay there and help them.
Anyone who opposes the Iraq war I do not want as president. How can the Commander-in-Chief be expected to lead the military if he or she does not support them? I look for that when selecting a candidate. And right now, the democrats and Ron Paul do not support them. I do not see them able to succeed at the position of Commander-in-Chief of the United States' Armed Forces. I want someone who will give them the equipment they need along with the proper funding and let them clean up Iraq. I know they can do it too. They know only one word: Victory. Were we happy when the Monarchs beat us in football four years in a row? No. Weren't we happy when we kicked the snot out of them this year? Oh yeah. It feels good to win So why then do we want to pull out and loose?
I'm sure that all of the candidates are good people. Not a doubt goes by. Hillary has done civil services outside of government. Romney is a Holy person. Obama is the new Martin Luther King Jr. I know they are good people because they have the support of Americans. We do not support bad people. The difference is that I do not agree with their ideology.
Hmmm. wild wx man says that he likes McCain because at debates he answers questions with "calm and sincereness." Maybe the reason for his calmness is because he has no clue what he is talking about. Do we really want to be in Iraq for the next 100 years? With candidates like this no wonder the Republicans are getting smashed in head to head polls. And by the way, you can be sincerely dead wrong.
Actually, I do believe McCain knows what he is talking about. I think his views on Iraq are correct. And his life proves it. I think that somebody in the military who is a son and grandson of U.S. Admirals, would know about military operations such as Iraq.
He says the surge is working. The generals in Iraq say the surge is working. Then by golly, the surge is working.
i think voting is very important, but like ihavea6thtoe said, i dont think people should be forced to vote. Because if people were forced to vote when they really didn't want to, they would probably just throw down a random candidate, which in that case would cause the US to have an unfair election. But i do think that involving the youth politically is a very good thing because it gets more of our country involved in what has been and is going on in the united states, and if their involved, then the chances of their kids getting involved is higher, and so on and so forth.
It's good that people are getting so interested in the upcoming election because our Nation is really at a turning point in history with the issues presented in the upcoming election. The decision we make this year affects us for decades after, and we need to be the ones making this decision.
Wildfxman what views about Iraq do you think McCain is correct about. No one is saying that the surge is not working. The whole world can see that. Its a moot point. The bottom line is that he voted to authorize a war that was not justified in any way.
Simply because you have a military lineage does not somehow make you right or give you any more military knowledge then the next person. McCain was a fighter pilot NOT a general. And even if he was there are plenty of high ranking idiots in the military and the way that the war was handled is enough evidence of that.
McCain is yet another arrogant American who is willing to force America down the rest of the world's throat. This is supposedly why we fought wars in Vietnam and Korea. To protect a nation's right to choose their own form of government. Just because we are forcing democracy and not communism down peoples' throats does not make it right. If we want to influence people then do it economically. Not through armed aggression.
What if? -You are pretty much saying we screwed up in this war.
Do we not have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis get out of the mess? do we just leave them in the dark and tell them to fix their problems (such as water, electricity, etc.)?
They don't want us there. They already hate us probably. But if we leave, They will hate us even more because we abandon them. We promised we would help them. If we leave, we would break our promise, hurting our reputation (if it isn't bad already.)
As McCain said in one of the debates, if we leave Iraq and come home, the terrorists will follow us.
So now we have two things we need to worry about if we decide to leave Iraq. We abandon the Iraqis while breaking our promises and an increase terrorist threat level.
I don't know, I'd still rather fight in Iraq than in America.
We did try isolationism. It didn't work so well... Hitler took advantage of the free world minding their own business and decided to start the Third Reich. And Japan bombed us because we wanted our oil for ourselves.
I have a question too. Were there people in the 1940's that did not want to fight in WWII? Were there people that panicked when the death toll was high? Yes, I feel bad for the families of the soldiers who gave their lives in this war. But when we compare this to WWII, there are less American deaths in Iraq.
Secondly, I do feel that we did not mindlessly invade Iraq. I do feel that on 9/11 we were attacked by terrorists. I do believe we went into Iraq to fight terrorists. And that it just so happened that Hussein was helping the terrorists.
We cannot mindlessly leave Iraq either. We have to make sure the job gets done. We have to make sure there is stability in Iraq and that their law enforcement can maintain order. While our troops are there, they are training the Iraqi law enforcement. Our military role has decreased while their role increased. But only by a tiny bit. We are beginning to leave. Apparently, according to Bush, there is a U.S. Marine group (battalion if my memory serves me correctly?) that has left Iraq and will not be replaced.
Time should never be a factor. If it takes 100 years to get the job done, great. If it takes 1 year, great too. The important thing is that the job will get done. It must get done. It is our moral obligation as a country.
I never once used the word isolationism. I said "leave other nations alone." How is that isolationism? It isn't. Its called not being arrogant, respecting other nations' sovereignty, and not waging aggressive war. Which is what Hitler did (waged aggressive war) and which is why we should have joined World War II earlier and would have been justified to do so.
Your comparison between World War II and the Iraq War does not hold up. In World War II we fought against a group of nations that were attempting to take control of Europe and the Far East. How is that possibly comparable to Iraq? Saddam Hussein had not invaded anyone since Desert Storm and was not a threat to our nation.
Also, there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. We are not talking about Afghanistan right now. Yes, Saddam thought it was a great thing that happened, but that doesn't mean he was involved. You can feel and believe all you want about this topic. Feeling and believing do not equal knowing anything. So when you know something that supports your beliefs feel free to bring it up.
You are right though. We need a strong independent Iraq to counterbalance the presence of Iran in the Middle East. Which is what Iraq under Saddam was. Yet another reason that we should have let them be.
Time is a factor whether you want it to be or not. This nation does not want to be losing soldiers in Iraq indefinitely. We have also depleted our militaries supplies and it will take years to replace them. With every passing day in Iraq we place ourselves more and more at risk from other threats around the world. We have more of a moral obligation to protect our own nation than we do to stay in Iraq.
I brought up WWII to compare deaths due to Iraq and WWII. The death tolls are lower in Iraq than WWII and people are complaining. I have not heard a complaint about the death tolls in WWII. Yes, we mourn their deaths. But their deaths were not in vain. We also fought back when we were attacked.
We had every right to invade Iraq when we did. In the late 1980's, Saddam used bio-weapons against the Kurds. If he had them in the 80's, he had them in 2003. He said he had weapons of mass destruction. Bush said it. Republicans said it. Democrats said it. Great Britain said it. France. Germany. Everyone but Kucinich said it. He kept the U.N. inspectors out. The U.N. told us along with other countries to fly planes over Iraq. Saddam naturally shot them down. We invaded. We brought his regime to an end.
Wars tend to destroy the nation they happen in. We just happen to have bomb the snot out of Baghdad. I remember watching that in the news. We are in Iraq currently to help the Iraqis rebuild and get a working government.
If we leave Iraq now, there will be much more chaos than there is now. We have a moral obligation to help the Iraqis. We need to achieve victory. We cannot raise the white flag and leave. (Gen. Patton would roll over in his grave...)
Time can never be a factor for how long you fight. Never. Time tables imply losing. America never enjoys losing. It's like cheering when the Monarchs beat the Titans. You say we will fight for 5 years. The enemy backs down and after you retreat, they kick you in the rear. We learned that from Vietnam. So if we say we will retreat in 6 months, the terrorists will back down. We will leave in the illusion that all is well... until they kick us in the rear with another 9/11.
We must stay in Iraq and get the job done. There is no turning back. Once we achieve victory, then sure, we can leave. When will there be victory? I do not know. But when it does come, we will know. We have to be patient. I feel just as sad as you do when the death toll raises. But it also because of it that we must stay in Iraq. We leave now, the soldiers' deaths become meaningless.
I do agree with you that we need to protect our nation. And that is another reason why we are in Iraq. If we are not going to fight the terrorists in the Mideast, then where do we fight them? America? How is fighting terrorists in America going to protect us?
Yes, but WWII was a totally different war fought for a totally different reason. WWII was justified while our invasion of Iraq was not. We had no right to invade Iraq when we did. Because they used to have "WMDs" does not mean that they still do. And if they had them when we invaded then where are they now? Why can't we find them?
We might have been justified in taking Saddam out of power in the early 90s, but did you ever think there might be a reason we didn't? Sunni controlled Iraq was a balance to Shia controlled Iran. By taking the Sunnis out of power we destabilized the area and have allowed Iran to become an unrivaled power in the region. Great job Dubya.
You are arguing in circles. The fact that we bombed them was unjustified so we created the problem we must now deal with. Yes, we should rebuild what we destroyed. But how long does it take to rebuild? I think that in five years we could probably rebuild New York City a couple of times. What is taking so long?
As far as their government goes why don't we just give them a timeline and if they deviate then we should leave. It is not our job to make sure that every nation avoids petty infighting. Also, General Patton was just that: a general. He won wars, he did not rebuild countries.
I'm glad you can be so specific about victory in Iraq. When victory comes we will recognize it??? Wow that sounds like an ingenius plan. Lets stay in Iraq until the clouds part and a voice from heaven tells us we have won. Great idea. And while you're at it I would like a pony.
You know what is more meaningless than dead soldiers who died for nothing? More dead soldiers who are dying for nothing. Lets get out of this war and come home.
By the way, how are these terrorists going to follow us home? They aren't rats. They can't hide on our ships til we come into port and then run off. A large majority of the 9/11 terrorists were here on old visas. How about we come home, enforce our laws, and secure our borders. I think that sounds like a much better plan then fighting indefinitely in Iraq.
No one should be forced to vote if they don't want to but they should take advantage of the right. I won't be able to vote in the upcoming election but I definitely would if I could.
It's important that the youth of America votes. They could have a huge affect on how the election turns out. This election is going to be a big one because there are so many important issues. One of these is, of course, Iraq, which I personally think is working. That's all I'm going to say though because I don't want to get involved in this little debate going on.
Ok, so question for the debaters on this post: with all the globalization that we've been learning about...how effective has this combat war really been? Because the terrorists don't really need a base to work from due to all the technology available wouldn't we be more effective training intelligence officers?
I think the war in Iraq was honorable, and it matches up with the idea that Friedman brought up about the superpowers controlling who can have nuclear weapons, etc. But now it is dead. We should pull out and plan for the future...in our high-tech world we're going to need fast-acting defenses if we're going to protect ourselves.
Voting is a right many people take for granted. I feel that those who do not vote simply because they do not care has deeper meaning, as if they do not care for our country. Most of our ancestors fought for our rights and if we don't use them, what good is it? I think a good reason would be that youths simply do not know how to get involved politically. Even in the past few months, I have grown to find interests in politics simply because I know more about it. But it is good to see that with Obama and Clinton, the youth vote seems to be reappearing.
Due to the fact that we live in a republic, I highly doubt anyone will be forced to vote, thus I do not understand why this topic is even being argued about. Nor do I think it plausible that people don't know it's important to vote.
It's all been said before. Yes, the votes today will be the corner stone for the world tomorrow. Yes, we don't know how the youths will vote. Yes, it's simply marvelous, fabulous for youths to get involved. And yes, this will be a very important election, as there is both a woman and African American running. Why say what we already know?
As for the two who are writing impossibly long comments, essays even, or perhaps a better choice of words would manifestos to their cause/belief, I have a suggestion…the two of you ought to meet up for a cup of Joe, as it seems you would have a lot to talk about.
Beef Sandwich is back. After a two month nap, no a two month coma (that's a good coma), I'm refreshed and ready to spit out my opinions. So here we go.
"What if?" is quite the character. I find it very hard to believe that one man can debunk, and pick apart every little thing about Wild Wx Man, and who he supports, and what he believes, and how he views things, and not really pick a single guy, or woman now, that he supports. How is it that What If can just trash talk, and trash talk, and not leave anything for me to bag on about his candidate? It's just not fair.
So I'll pick apart what he has to say. He says that he believes securing our borders, and blah blah blah, will be a better plan than fighting indefinitely in Iraq. Well no fake, Mr. If. You don't think you just let the world in on a big secret, do you? Obviously fighting forever would not be a good way to go. You seem to support the staying side by some of your support for the going side. You said we poured all these resources, and money, and lives, into this war. Then why would we even think of putting all that to waste and backing out?! I find you must not really be too connected with this war because if you're uncle passed away because of our so-called mistake, then you definitely would be in support of finishing what we started.
As for Wild Wx Man, which means what? You should explain that in your next blog. What does wild wx man means? It reminds me of Saturday morning megaman. Him and his laser shooting arm. Lucky guy. Anyways, your information is good, you opinions are well supported, but you don't just throw your information out there for the dogs to bite at. Your comments are comparable to a superbowl ad I saw last sunday. It was about trying to get to a party with some drinks and some guying marching in with the wheel. All was well except for they used the wheel wrong, the wheel being the information, and now were left going down an ever harder path. I think you need to build yourself another wheel and get going.
Now I won't be a hypocrite or anything, so I will say that I support the Big O. He's breaking barriers and that's what I look for in a President. Something new. Not only do I find that he's young enough to understand what I want, he's also minority enough to know what everyone will want and not just specific groups. He's well-rounded in my opinion. But not every candidate can be perfect, and I will say that I do not support what he has to say about the War. I wish there was a Barack Obama equivalent who was republican. Now that'd be real tight. I'd support them in a flash.
i think its the advances in technology that have gotten the youth politically involved. its easier to acquire information, check stats, etc. I think people are also concerned about the gas prices, which affects many of us, young ens.
Mr. Beef Sandwich welcome back and I am glad to hear that all is well. As for the meaning of Wild wx Man, 'wx' is the abbreviation for weather. I like the weather and thought that I'd make a pen name about it. And Mr. phonebook, a nice warm cup of coffee does sound good right now.
Soccerdoggy90, you bring up interesting points. I believe that we have been successful in Iraq. This war is important in terms of globalization because it puts Iraq on the right tracks towards the free global market.
We have started the democratization process in Iraq. If we leave now while Iraq is a weak democracy, it could reverse back to authoritarian rule. Chaos would ensue and it would be very unlikely that Iraq could join the free global market because no business would want to make goods in a country that is unstable. Our efforts would have been a waste of time. The soldiers' lives would be in vain. And Money would have been wasted.
We are slowly letting the Iraqis control the situation and hopefully sooner than later, they will be able to completely control it. Then we can leave once there is stability. With stability, M.N.C.'s are willing to begin business in Iraq. Iraq will then be apart of the free market, and the Michael Dell theory may be able to apply to Iraq resulting in more peace in the world.
As far as technology, I think we could restart Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI): Star Wars. Wouldn't it be cool? we could blast nuclear missiles targeting USA and our allies from space. As technology gets better and better, this becomes more reachable.
Post a Comment