Barack Obama

Obama: Losing His Grip on Youth, Says the 2012 Vote


Interesting info on youth vote and turnout from Generation Opportunity, "the nation's largest social media and grassroots organization reaching out to young Americans ages 18-29" (they say about themselves–they are clearly right-wing leaning) sent out in an emailed press release today, online here:

In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama won 18-29 year olds by 34 points (66%-32%). This year, President Obama won 18-29 year olds by 23 points (60%-37%). The youth vote swung 11 points away from President Obama, more than twice any other age demographic….

The conventional wisdom, which was advanced and shared by numerous news outlets and grassroots organizations, including the AP, Pew, and Huffington Post, was that young people would A) decrease in turnout compared to 2008 levels, and B) vote in just as strong of a margin for President Obama in 2012 as they did 2008. Yet, young adult turnout actually increased (from 18% to 19%) and swung 11 points away from President Obama.

What's it all mean for the future? I can confidently assert I don't know. Young people of America, libertarianism is an option.


NEXT: Man Who Confessed to Etan Patz Murder Appears in Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Blasphemy!

    1. More than phones?…huh..go figure.

    2. Mitt said it ain’t so.

  2. Oh good, this means that very few young people will cast ballots for Obama in 2016. That’s awesome.

    1. It’s entirely probable that around ~0% of people will “cast ballots for Obama in 2016”

      1. Don’t get too happy about that. They might be casting them for Bitme and the Hildebeast.. shudder…

        1. They will have spent 8 years burnishing their presidential credentials by then, what could possibly go wrong with either one of them at the helm?

          /takes a another sip of anti-freeze

        2. Who’s Bitme?

          1. Type-o. Biteme, Unlce Joe Bitme.

            1. Who’s Unlce?

              1. “The Man From Unlce” was a foreign knockoff t.v. show in the spy genre, in the ~60’s starring Unlce Joe Bitme.

      2. Not if they run Michelle Obama.

      3. Oh yeh of cours the racist on this cite will oppose the constitusionel amendment inferring OBAMA to run for his tird term. smh

  3. libertarianism is an option

    That’s the swing. They sure as hell are not turning SoCon. Look at the crowds of young people that Ron Paul attracts.

    I hope that RP does some occasional liberty speaking tours on campuses around the country, now that he has retired from the senate. Maybe he can reach some of those annoying youngsters that those of us around here don’t seem to have much luck convincing.

    1. Ron Paul was never in the Senate.


      1. Damnit! HOR! Fuckkkkk!!!

  4. What’s it all mean for the future?

    Nothing good, I’m sure.

    1. Come on bro, everything is going our way, sorta.. polish up your monocle and be happy!

      1. I have to disagree, dude. One or two things went in the direction of liberty, the rest is accelerating away faster than women run screaming from Warty. It is the inevitable march of statism and government, and it does not reverse. It either collapses or it just keeps growing.

        1. It either collapses or it just keeps growing

          Both are inevitable. Just that one of them precedes the other. Just reverse the order you had it in and you got it.

        2. It can reverse under some conditions (obviously, or we’d all be speaking Nazi Latin), but those conditions don’t appear to exist in sufficient quantities in our culture. Not anymore.

        3. It is the inevitable march of statism and government, and it does not reverse.

          End of military conscription.

          End of government set air fares.

          And so on.

          Maybe the net result is growth of government, but it is not inevitable.

          1. End of slavery.

            First states legalizing weed.

            Women’s suffrage.

          2. I’m not sure that women’s suffrage is a reduction of statism and government.

            As for the rest, they’re more like the one step forward in one step forward, five steps back.

            You’re still heading the wrong direction.

  5. What % of that demographic voted for Johnson? That being said, sure, I know plenty of people in my age group that are skeptical of Obama and liberalism. They’re either religious conservatives or just cynical. If the GOP would drop the so-con pandering about abortion and gay marriage and be more libertarian in its rhetoric they’d probably do much better.

    1. With only ~40% G.O.P voter turnout, and ~24.5% of the nation voting for them in 2012, I cannot see how being more Libertarian would make it worse for them.

    2. I don’t know if you’ll be able to find what percent voted for Johnson, but according to exit polls, Obama beat Romney 60-37 among 18-29 year olds, which means the percent who voted third party is between 2 and 4 percent (as the numbers are rounded). By contrast, Romney beat Obama 56-44 among seniors, which means less than 1 % of them voted third party

      1. Well, with the number of them that will find themselves jobless if the Dems stay in power and continue their reckless and goofy policies, plus the fact that we are running out of money for more free shit, you might see more youths starting to actually think about politics. They might have plenty of time on their hands to do so.

        They are there for the taking for the LP. I believe that they are increasingly disillusioned with team Blue, it’s just that the SoCons scare the fuck out of them, and who could blame them.

        1. I myself am in that age group, and I agree with a lot of your points. I’m going to college right now, and while most people here who voted, voted for Obama (probably in greater numbers than the national average. I do live in California), I don’t think there were nearly as many hardcore supporters as they were four years ago. A large number were more or less of the mind that “Yeah, he’s not all that great, but Romney and the Republicans suck, so I’ll vote for him.” And I’d say the primary reasons they feel that way is 1) Republican SoCon bullshit 2) The perception that Republicans, and Romney in particular, only care about the rich. 3) Other factors, such as leftover general hatred of the Republicans from Bush, who they grew up under, and the general cultural meme that young people are supposed to vote Democrat (I’d say this is more important the less one knows about politics)

          1. Point 1 is of course, entirely justifiable.

            Point 2, they need to be slapped silly for the stupidity of that thinking. I don’t know how they could be doing any research into who they are voting for and think that either candidate actually cares more about the middle class or poor than about their rich donors.

            I work at a University and I often found myself, before the election, playing fly on the wall and listening to students conversations, just to see if I would hear any comments about the election. Very, very few. Almost nothing, and this was over the period of about a month.

            You didn’t even have to try to hear the opinions of 60 something hippy faculty members, they were all in the Obama tank and never stopped going on about it.

            1. Yeah, people didn’t really talk about it at all until around the time the debates started, and from then on it would come up from time to time. And to expand on point 2, I don’t think it was so much the Republicans in general, but Romney specifically seemed to confirm the stereotype as an out-of-touch, rich, elitist, Wall Street guy. Not saying it justifies voting for Obama, just saying how a lot of people saw it. Most people don’t do that much research into politics

        2. Well, with the number of them that will find themselves jobless if the Dems stay in power and continue their reckless and goofy policies, plus the fact that we are running out of money for more free shit,

          Sounds a lot like Europe, which isn’t exactly trending libertarian these days.

          I know, the culture is different, but still, the obvious and blatant failure of government doesn’t necessarily mean that most people won’t respond by saying “HIT IT MOAR HARDER, GREAT LEADER!” The odds are, that’s exactly what they’ll say.

      2. With as many, if not more regged voters not voting, as did in 2012 [ both (R) & (D], I cannot see how the demographics matter this time around. Vested interests/partisan hacks/doomsayers/the bored/ are probably the overwhelming bulk of the people, who did vote, and they were entirely focused on party lines and perceived objectives, and oblivious to third party’s by their very nature. If anything, both parties kinda got the big ‘fuck you’ from the issue motivated, moderates and the casually indifferent. In 2016 that might just change though when….nothing of substance is offered for either (R) or (D),…AGAIN.

    3. “If the GOP would drop the so-con pandering about abortion and gay marriage”

      From the standpoint of the youth vote, these issues are apples and oranges. While their support for gay marriage is going up, their support for abortion is going down.

      I mean, it’s possible to think gay marriage is cool without being in favor of ripping up human beings in the womb.

  6. If the GOP would drop the so-con pandering

    And we have a winner.

  7. What is that, Maoist Obama in that photo?

    1. Sure looks like it.

    2. Kim Il-Bama

        1. LOL Obamugabe

        2. Baracko Mussolini

          1. Il Douche

            1. Good…+1

            2. I’m stealing it.

  8. The real question is how many people stayed home after spending tons of effort on Ron Paul campaign, only to get fucked by the GOP and Romney.

    I’m willing to bet it was enough to turn the election.

    The GOP had all of these fired up people right there and blew it because they can’t compromise on the War on Drugs, gay marriage, and the perpetual warfare state.

    1. If they compromised on those things, then they wouldn’t be the GOP anymore, now would they?

      /literally half of the republican talking heads or opinion writers that I listened to after the election

      1. Obviously none of them remember Goldwater.

        1. I remember Goldwater.

          He’s the man, the man with the Midas touch,
          A spider’s touch.
          Such a cold finger,
          Beckons you to enter his web of sin,
          But don’t go in.

          1. Beckons you to kiss his ass,
            Mr. Falwell.

            1. I also remember his VP candidate, Mr. Job. He had some sort of odd first name that escapes me.

              1. I was much more enamored of his personal pilot.

                1. Oh, yeah, what was her name? Vagina Aplenty?

      2. They don’t have to change anything, really. Just focus the emphasis on something else. Like spending cuts.

        1. HAHAHAHAHA!

          Spending cuts? How quaint!

          1. You’ll find me rather monomaniacal on this topic these days. I have a slogan.

            1. Yes? Well what is it?

              1. “No, fuck you, cut spending.” It’s now a motivational poster, funded by the Childrens’ Television Workshop and viewers like you.

            2. I have a slogan.

              Me too.

              Buy ammo.

            3. I’m going to guess.

              Come see the softer side of Libertate.

      3. they wouldn’t be the GOP anymore

        They wouldn’t be the Bush NeoCons, if that is what you meant to say.

        1. Can we just erase the GOP leadership from Nixon on and start over?

          1. Does that mean that we get rid of the WOD before it even started? Ok, I am in.

            1. EPA and OSHA too. Not to mention the whole Southern Strategy Crap.

              1. I don’t think Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union would appreciate that whole “return to communism” thing.

      4. Funny how they are compromising tax and debt increases with Obama right now – but couldn’t possibly compromise with Ron Paul and his delegation.

        Almost like they Republicans would prefer working with Obama.

        1. They would. When I talk to Repub insiders here in Texas, their hatred/contempt for the Tea Party is palpable. Dems, well, you know, we can work with them . . .

    2. Who really cares? Ron Paul got 2 million primary votes. That’s a million more votes than Johnson got in the general election. Where were the Ron Paul “liberty lovers” when there was a candidate who clearly agreed with them on at least 90% of the issues? They either didn’t vote or voted for Team Red. That says a lot about how dedicated these cultists are to the liberty movement.

      1. That was in response to Scruffy Nerfherder.

      2. Where were the Ron Paul “liberty lovers” when there was a candidate who clearly agreed with them on at least 90% of the issues?

        Perhaps the answer is that they didn’t want to work outside the GOP. Another plausible answer is that they knew Johnson wouldn’t win so stayed home.

        Can you actually quantify that 90% figure?

        Shorter: Did you actually have anything useful to contribute?

  9. They’ll all leave the Democratic party when they see 5% Obamacare taxes applied to their dinning out bills and delivery pizzas.

    1. The 5% Obamacare tax is strategic, it prevents piss broke fat slobs with tight wallets from buying that poisonous soda that’s killing them, and America…oh, and diabeeteez too.

      Eventually we will all see that this for the ‘greater good'(tm), because being broke helps us all control our baser impulses.

      1. No, that 5% tax is going to hit the young hard because they don’t cook a lot (at least we didn’t when I was young). And the young being healthy as a group aren’t as concerned with healthcare, at least not in a personal sense. So this overreaching could be their undoing.

  10. Four years of high unemployment, disproportionately affecting the younger voters — the wonder is that Romney didn’t get half of them. The youth vote that OUGHT to have most soundly rejected Obama because they have really high unemployment — black kids — voted for him in lockstep.

    1. The GOP has an image problem with minority voters. And it may take several election cycles to break this. IOW, their best strategy is to start purging now, and to do so in a very public fashion. I doubt this will actually happen.

  11. First off, who care he’s losing the youth? He’s in. He won. It won’t matter next time.

    Libertarians need to go in and mess with their heads.

    Next, about youth unemployment. I still can’t believe Elizabeth Warren was voted in. In one of the debates she had with Brown a student asked one of them stupid ‘I’m in poli sci will there be a job for me?’ questions. Her answer was that she was going to expand infrastructure. There’ll be jobs, sure….in CONSTRUCTION!

    I couldn’t believe the level of cluelessness and empty left-wing platitudes. Right there, if I was a voter, I’d toss her out.

    Alas, people don’t think like me. Boo-hoo-hoo. Always a bridesmaid never a bride.

    1. Right there, if I was a voter, I’d toss her out.

      Ell Oh Effing Ell.

  12. I am just glad the American Sheeple were able to see through Romneys LIES.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.