Slashdot Mirror


Media Got It Wrong: Young Generation Did Vote

Newsweek has a small story on MSNBC: Not Slackers After All?. It seems the media jumped to conclusions when it said, right after the election, that 18-to-29 year olds didn't turn out in record numbers. In fact, the participation of every age group was up, including young voters, but the youth vote wasn't up any more than other age groups, so the percentage was about the same from the 2000 election. I guess everyone rocked the vote.

10 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. On the other hand by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exit polls revealed that while the youngest age group still formed the same proportion of the voting population that it did in 2000, the next older group voted in a substantially lower proportion, and the oldest two groups voted in a somewhat higher proportion.

    Ultimately it's a matter of playing with numbers and interpreting the results in whatever way makes you feel good. In this case, the people involved in youth voter drives are spinning the numbers to say that their efforts actually did something, when really nobody can say one way or another what factors actually influenced the youth vote.

  2. As a member of the Religious Right... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is intended to be 'interesting', nothing more.

    As a conservative Christian, I heard all the appeals from the Hollywood Left (Bruce Springsteen, Snoop Doggy Dog, MTV, et al) and thought, "Man, I'd better make sure to vote! The college kids are going to turn out and who knows what will happen!"

    Perhaps the Get Out the Vote campaign was more effective than they thought.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:As a member of the Religious Right... by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a young columbus resident, I heard all the appeals from P-Diddy, Chris Rock, John Kerry, and everyone else at least once each every day ... on my phone ... at my door ... on my tv.

      I think we had 7 messages on our answering machine the day before elections and those are just the times we didn't answer the phone. We would see a canvaser a day at our door every day of the week leading up to the election. Sometimes there would be several in one a day.

      What was the effect of this? We developed a strong hatred for anyone invading the privacy of our home in order to tell us to go vote. We'd tell them everyday, yes, we're voting, we put up a frickin political sign in are yard... but still they would come back day after day after day. At the end of it all, my room mate was actually threatening not to vote if people didn't stop pestering us.

      It was harassment.

  3. Thank God by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Allow me to say "Thank god" - young people are idiots. I say this with certainty because I am one of them. Most of us have the attention span of gnats and would have been making votes based on stupid ideas - the draft? Give me a goddamn break, MTV. The whole 'Rock The Vote' charade was a thinly veiled attempt to get young people afraid they were going to be drafted if George W. Bush stayed in power. When I told people it was a democrat that introduced a draft bill into congress, it was democrats who voted for it, and that it was john kerry who called for mandatory service, they would go 'oh' and realize they'd been duped. If you want to get young people interested in the political process, telling them to 'vote or die' and filling their head with rediculous lies isn't the best way to do it.

    --

    My blog
    1. Re:Thank God by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      he shoots... he misses!

      I accept that people on both sides will be wrong about certain things. That's because we're people. The main difference is, the President of the US and his team actively spread those lies to ensure their re-election. Any incorrect details believed by Kerry supporters weren't learned through Kerry or his campaign.

      Also, Saddam wasn't a massive supporter of international terrorism. Paying $1,000 to families of palestinian suicide bombers isn't a great deal compared to the $1bn given to Israel by the US. Zarqawi was protected by the Kurds in the north, not by Saddam. Anyway - those two facts are NOT enough for a UN member-state to invade and depose the regime. Sure, Iraq and Saddam did some bad things, but they don't warrant invasion.

      The ISG released its report on the state of WMDs in Iraq. They showed that Saddam not only didn't have WMDs, but that he hadn't had them for ages. It also showed the UN sanctions were working, and that Saddam couldn't re-start his programs even if he wanted to. Lots of Bush supporters think Saddam actually used WMDs on invading US troops. The Bush regime changed from saying Saddam had WMDs, to "WMD-related programs", which under their loose definition included any school science lab. That's not "closer to the truth" - that's complete nonsense.

      The invasion was unilateral. Does a dog and its fleas act multilaterally when it licks its balls? No. The fleas go and do what the dog does. They're too small to object. That's what the coalition was. Small nations looking for favor from the US administration. Most people supported the effort with non-combat troops, equipment and money. Why did you mention the UN when trying to defend Bush's unilateral position? He went to the UN, then ignored them. If I ask a policeman if I can shoot someone and he says "no", I'm not allowed to go out and shoot someone. That's ridiculous logic. The whole point of this war was because Saddam didn't obey international will and the UN, then Bush goes and defies international will and the UN to get rid of him. Mixed messages?

      The surveys are extensive. Some Kerry supporters get the wrong end of the right stick - Most Bush supporters get the wrong end of the wrong stick.

  4. Yeah, of course by philthedrill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, when they're giving the stats in relative percentages, the numbers don't tell the whole story. Yet people were quick to make a judgment call before working out all of the numbers.

    With that said, I would have liked to see an even higher turnout. I've read that the national turnout was roughly 60% according to this article.

    But part of that was because Wisconsin had high voter turnout (see here), which was 72% statewide and 80% in Dane County (where Madison is). I guess I should blame myself since the campaigns really focused on the swing states... I'm sure the youth turnout in the non-swing states wasn't nearly as high.

    This article says the same thing as this post, except it noted towards the end that most of the youth voters are in or have attended college. The non-college youth are the people that I'd like to see vote.

  5. Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages by Noksagt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK. First of all: I was against the ammendments & didn't vote for Bush (though I'm not gay and am an independent who has voted for republicans & did vote for some in the last election).

    I haven't heard Rove or anyone else say that the ammendments were planned in order not to outlaw gay marriage, but to elect Bush. Please provide such evidence. I grant you that it is no secret that many for Bush were in favor of the ammendments, but correlation doesn't mean causation. And I've heard none try to claim that Bush, Rove, the RNC, or the citizens who voted for these ammendments aren't genuinely in support of them.

    Also: I am skeptical that this would cause voters to come out of the woodwork in order to vote for Bush, especially in moderately liberal states such as Oregon. Why didn't the ammendment cause sympathetic liberals to show up in larger numbers too? I would have predicted this to be more likely, especially as the turnout for youth voters and other demographics who would be more inclined to be against the ammendment & against Bush & who often don't vote would showup in outrage of the ammendment.

    The sad truth is that people are just less tolerant and more close-minded abouit marriage than either you or I would like to admit. But there is a very long way to go to try to prove the theory.

  6. Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages by Noksagt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You don't see cats and dogs screwing their own sex.
    Yes, actually: there are animals other than man who are homosexual. Zealots brush off this evidence with comments such as "but they don't have souls" or say that leprosy isn't "right" or "normal," even if it is a natural occurance. Of course neither argument is able to defend intolerance to animals, lepers, or gay people.

    So continue believing what you will, as long as you strive for education and compassion.
  7. Re:More Young must have Voted Republican by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful


    There have been quite a few stories in the mainstream media in the last couple of years about how young adults are growing more conservative. That might be part of what is going on.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. Re:Why do we think this is an embarrasment? by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1. Because someone they love might have property and they care for them.

    2. Because someone they love might have kids, and they care for them.

    3. Because someone they love might be retiring sometime soon, and they care for them.

    It's not all about "me, me, me!", you know. I wonder how you voted... ;)