The Democratic Party has a big, glaring Achilles Heel in the 2014 mid-term elections: its reliance on young voters. It has been disappointed before and it’s likely to be disappointed again.
That’s the gist of the view of Geoffrey Skelley, associated editor of the highly respected Sabato’s Crystal Ball. He notes that polls going back nearly 40 years show young people aren’t reliable in turning out for mid-terms. Here’s part of his piece:
Barring significant changes in group voting habits, many commentators have argued that “The Coalition of the Ascendant” is positioned to give Democrats a notable edge in elections in the near future. There may be some truth to that supposition: The country is clearly getting more diverse, and nonwhite voters tend to vote strongly Democratic.
A key cog in this coalition has been young voters — often called Millennials — who are more diverse than their elders. Exit poll data in 2012 suggest that young people were vital in securing President Barack Obama’s second term in the White House. He garnered 60% of the 18-to-29 vote (after winning 66% of it in 2008), by far the highest percentage Obama won among any age group. Estimating from exit poll data, all else equal, it’s possible that Obama would have narrowly lost the popular vote (and perhaps the Electoral College vote, too) had he won the same percentage among 18-to-29 year olds as he did among 30-to-44 year olds (52%). Continued strong support for Democratic presidential candidates in the future among younger voters could spell trouble for the GOP as generational replacement occurs (yes, that’s a euphemism).
However, one aspect of this trend is anything but rosy for Democrats: Since the first national exit poll was taken for a midterm election in 1978, only once (in that first survey) has the 18-to-29 age group made up a larger portion of a midterm electorate than voters who were 60 or older. And not only have young people almost always been the smallest part of midterm electorates in this period, their participation has usually been much smaller compared to presidential years. With Democrats more reliant on young voters to win elections, drop-off among that group could make it harder for Democrats to find success in midterm cycles.
Why is increased reliance on younger voters a potentially fraught strategy? First, consider recent voting habits by age group. As shown below in Figure 1, in the Age of Obama, the older the voter, the more likely that voter is to vote Republican; the younger the voter, the more likely that voter is to vote Democratic.
Just look at the graph:
AND:
This age pattern continued in 2010, when in House races Republicans won 59% of voters 65 or older, 53% of 45-to-64 year olds, 50% of 30-to-44 year olds and just 42% of those under 30. Looking back, the positive correlation streak between increased age and increased Republican voting started in the 2006 midterm cycle, at least when the electorate is grouped into four age cohorts.
Prior to 2006, this trend did not necessarily hold true. For instance, in the 2004 presidential election, more 45-to-59 year olds supported Democrat John Kerry than did 30-to-44 year olds. In fact, looking back in time, there has been some variation in the order of age group-level support for the two major parties in both presidential and congressional elections. As shown in Figures 2 and 3 below, while the youngest voters have typically been more Democratic in their leanings, they have not been the most Democratic age group in every election since 1972.
There’s more so (including some more graphs) so go to the link to read it all.
What does this mean? It means the Democrats must:
–Work to pull out all stops to get young voters to the polls.
–Have the foresight to get enough voters from other groups out to make up for the quite real possibility that they won’t get young people to vote in the mid-terms.
But in a way the goose now seems cooked: Obama’s poll numbers have been going south faster than elderly New Yorkers to Florida in the winter and there are already signs some disillusioned Democrats will stay home and not vote (a move SURE to help their agenda, right?) or some will decide to teach their party a less (what? No “public option?” I’ll show YOU!).
Meanwhile, the GOP base seems motivated than ever (by whatever red meat talk show radio hosts and Fox News is throwing out and by their hatred of you-know-who in the White House).
Events could change this, but the Dems might want to hold off the order for crates of champagne to be sent to party headquarters on election night.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.