David had an excellent comment about Super Tuesday, and where Obama’s strengths are at gaining support. It coincides with what I’ve seen as well; the more people are exposed to Obama, the more they choose him. It doesn’t always work that way with a candidate.
In any case, David also points out that Obama has been able to get previously uninvolved people out to vote. It reminded me that I see a lot of young people excited about Obama and paying attention to politics.
Lately, I’ve been very sensitive to listening to what people say, and trying to decide whether they really mean what they say, or whether they are saying things in a sort of automatic way. Even when people are sincere in their intentions, and are intending to be straight with you, they’re not always really straight with you because they’ll repeat things that they either have heard and have not thought through themselves. Sometimes they have accepted an idea for a reason that no longer applies because the situation has changed. Or they accept an idea superficially, but would never accept the true implications.
You hear a lot of people say that it’s a shame that young people aren’t more involved in politics, or interested in the world. It’s a common enough lament that I am almost positive you’ve heard it more than once. But do they really mean it? If they did, there ought to be a lot more support for progressive candidates, because I see young people largely supportive of progressive candidates.
I think that what they mean is that they wish more young people voted and thought the way they do, and in reality they are a little bit afraid of what would happen if mote young people were active. This is the counterpoint to experience; this is innovation.
If you want young people to vote, you have to offer a candidate they’d be willing to vote for. So, don’t say you wish more young people would vote without considering whether you want those candidates to win.
Posted by James at February 6, 2008 12:33 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.drmomentum.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2013
It's strange, ABC, CNN and Boston.com exit polls showed that roughly 12% of the votes were "youth" (18-29). ( I think I'm remembering the numbers correctly, it's not really the point though... )
But, ABCNews is also linked up with Facebook. If you take a look at Facebook and the "Supporters/Groups" for the candidates you see lots of the "youth" vote. However, ABC noticed that the number of "youth" actually voting versus the "sample" of Facebook "youth" that support a candidate (presuming they will vote) showed a HUGE gap. The "youth" didn't turn out when it came time for the Primary as what were seemingly "guaranteed" votes from Facebook.
So, ABC immediately had a poll on Facebook:
"Which of these would most likely make you vote?"
By a landslide, "Online voting" won.
So, clearly, if you want the "youth" to vote give them TEH INTERNETZ. My demographic sucks.
Posted by: Derek at February 6, 2008 9:36 PMI don't think that's so crazy. Already people are voting oversees via the internet. (http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2008/02/primary_evote)
This may be more resistant to tampering than some traditional methods of voting. I think the key is keeping it transparent, unlike electronic voting machines.
It would be very nice if the internet were truly accessible across all demographics and internet voting were a possibility. Then how would the Republicans keep people away from the polls? The problem is that the people they're trying to keep away are less likely to have internet access.
Posted by: Maggie at February 7, 2008 9:23 AM