May 23, 2008
Youth Support for Obama Played Substantial Role in Kentucky and Oregon Primary Outcomes
An analysis of exit poll results from this week’s Democratic primaries in Kentucky and Oregon shows that youth support for Barack Obama helped him win Oregon and cut into Hillary Rodham Clinton’s margin of victory in Kentucky.
In Oregon, Mr. Obama, who received the support of 59 percent of all Democratic voters, was the choice of 79 percent of those under the age of 30, according to the analysis by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, a nonpartisan research organization based within the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Mrs. Clinton won 41 percent of the overall vote but, according to the Circle analysis, just 21 percent of the vote from the under-30 demographic.
In Kentucky, Mrs. Clinton was the choice of 65 percent of all Democrats, but she would have done better had not just 54 percent of those under 30 picked her. Barack Obama received 30 percent of the overall Democratic vote but 41 percent of the vote from Democrats under 30, the Circle analysis found. (The 5 percent of all voters who did not pick either candidate consists of 3 percent who did not commit to a candidate and 2 percent who voted for John Edwards, whose name remained on the ballot despite his departure from the race.)
An estimated 12 percent of eligible Kentuckians under 30 took part in that state’s Democratic primary, where they accounted for about 13 percent of all Democratic voters. In Oregon, 18 percent of eligible people in this age bracket showed up for the Democratic primary and accounted for 16 percent of all voters, the Circle analysis says.
So far, Mr. Obama has been favored by a majority of young voters in 34 of the 45 states that have held primaries or caucuses.
Peter Schmidt | Posted on Friday May 23, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: Obama to Address Wesleyan U. Graduates in Kennedy's Place
Next: Obama Speaks at Wesleyan Graduation, Fills In for Kennedy
Every generation seeks to bring new leadership to our nation. I guess those of us who are baby boomers must come to terms with the reality that our children have grown up and now want to take up the responsibilities of leadership. I just hope that we prepared them well and are graceful enough to relinquish the spotlight to them. I say, let’s support the idealistic youth who are so attracted to Obama and what he symbolizes. It is time for a change. That is one reason why I changed from Hillary to Barack and voted that way in the Democratic primary in my state.
— Rick May 24, 07:09 AM #
That’s what’s being currently invoked. There’s need for paradigm shift and that’s what the American people stand for. Let’s try Obama and see what he has to offer.
— Peter Abraham May 24, 05:34 PM #
Rick and Peter,
That’s very noble when the world is at peace and we can afford to “experiment” with a foreign policy novice like Barak. But not when we’re at the very precipis of a world war and every would-be suicide bomber is frothing at the mouth to be the one to take down the American satan. Dangerous times like this call for leaders with military experience and “know-how.” McCain is that leader!
— marci May 24, 09:08 PM #
Marci – your response comes across as both condescending and historically naive, whether or not you intended it to.
Novice Abraham Lincoln proved to be the best possible president during one of our nation’s most dangerous times. George McClellan, the experienced military leader, proved incompetent to bring the Civil War to a close yet had the temerity to challenge Lincoln’s re-election. Lincoln saw the nation through until his assassination.
FDR was considered a lightweight by many yet he led our nation through equally perilous times, both domestic and foreign. He did so until his death in office.
John Kennedy was considered too young to be president. His first foreign policy disaster was the Bay of Pigs, which had been planned by the previous “experienced” admininstration (Ike was the Allied Supreme Commander in WWII, which is lots of experience by any measure you might make.) Yet, JFK proved his mettle in handling the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis. He took RFK’s advice to pursue diplomatic avenues rather than Gen. LeMay’s to engage in a pre-emptive strike, and we are all better off as a result.
Our nation needs a leader with intelligence, appropriate humility in the face of life’s complexities, and the ability to learn quickly as our global struggle with terrorism evolves. Obama has shown the intelligence, humility and capacity to learn that I seek in a president.
McCain has not demonstrated these same qualities. He is tempermental. He is not consistent in his leadership or understanding. Instead he is showing himself to be just like the other Washington opportunists we so often decry. How else to explain his pandering to the right wing of his party? How else to explain his failure to see the appearance of impropriety with respect to his relationships with Washington lobbyists.
No, I am not a “noble” person. I am a hard-eyed pragmatist with some core principles (those fundamental values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution) which call for liberty, equality and justice. I want a president who will genuinely defend those values and promote them across the world, not one who will trumpet militarism as if it were the only answer. The current administration has amply demonstrated the shortcomings of taking the position that relies on militarism. Global politics always requires a more nuanced view than that afforded by a simplistic military perspective. Lincoln, FDR, JFK and others have demonstrated that ability to understand the proper and effective mix of military, diplomatic and economic actions to achieve goals that support our nation’s vital interests. I believe Obama is capable of demonstrating the same skill as president. That is one of the reasons I am willing to support him.
Other reasons include his relative youth, energy, broad support among many different segments of our fractious republic and his genuiness. I did not start out as an Obama supporter; I supported Clinton primarily because I see her as intelligent, experienced, tough, and committed to the basic values and principles I believe are important. However, Clinton has not galvanized the kind of support that Obama has so I have changed my mind (I always tell students that it is important to let new information and experience influence their opinions; I am simply practicing what I preach.)
— Rick May 25, 11:24 AM #
Rick, I’m glad to have read this exchange because I see that you’ve given a lot of thought to your choice for the presidential race. I could argue with you point by point on the three examples you cite of “great” presidents. But I’m afraid that might require way too much detail for a “blog.” Let’s just say that the conventional wisdom typically spouted by the average guy or gal on the street is that Lincoln, FDR and JFK were all incredible leaders who led this country in the face of daunting adversaries, etc etc.
I hate to burst your bubble, Rick, but as they say in the lyrics … t’ain’t necessarily so! Each one of these men had serious foibles and distractions. Careful studies of presidential leadership have uncovered some of the blatant errors and miscalculations by these three resulting in huge costs to this nation. As but one example, the weak negotiating by FDR at war’s end virtually handed the Eastern bloc of nations to the Soviet Union on a platter. Do you have any sense of how many lives were lost as a result? No, you won’t find this one in the standard American History 101 text. And what about JFK? His standoff with Krushchev almost resulted in a nuclear war with the Soviets! Was that the kind of youth and energy and charisma that we need to bring into the presidency?
— harris May 25, 09:41 PM #
Harris – I appreciate your concern but you need not worry about bursting my bubble. I was born when Truman was president and have lived through the good and the bad of each succeeding presidency during my lifetime. I definitely learned years ago that no president is perfect, so I try to judge them based on the overall trajectory of their work. So, while FDR may not have prevented the USSR from dominating the Eastern Block, he did make substantial contributions to the survival of Britain before we finally entered WWII. He also probably saved the USA as a democratic republic and capitalist nation with his New Deal experiments – we did not have a “Red October” during any of the years of the Great Depression. As I noted, JFK did avoid nuclear war in October 1962 and he did set us on the road to non-proliferation with the nuclear test-ban treaty, even though he set the stage for our involvement in Viet Nam. So, while I understand your points, they don’t really suggest to me a change in the historical arc of the presidencies of FDR or JFK.
Let’s be graceful in ceding leadership to the next generation (if you are a member of my generation.) We were young once, too. I say, let’s find ways to share what wisdom we may have with the next generation of leaders, including letting them know we don’t expect them to be perfect any more than we were as a generation. I expect the next generation to bring a commitment to hard work, intelligence and justice to our government. I still believe that Obama promises to bring the youth, energy and intelligence our nation needs at this critical time. He might turn out to be the “uniter, not divider” that we were promised 8 years ago. Whatever flaws he may reveal, it looks to me like the overall historical arc of his presidency is more favorable than what McCain promises.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
— Rick May 27, 05:36 PM #