Youth Voters and the 2012 Presidential Election

By Maggie Palin

In my mind one of the most fascinating periods in modern campaign history is undoubtedly the spring and summer of 2007. The entire country was engrossed in following the candidates crisscross Iowa and New Hampshire. Congressional and party leaders were lining up in droves behind their chosen nominee, and you couldn’t go a few hours without hearing something new about the campaign trail. I even remember worrying that some uneducated voters would think that the election was that November, and not the one after.

Fast-forward four years to 2011 and you wouldn’t even think that the presidential campaign season has started if you didn’t live in Iowa, New Hampshire, or within the D.C. Beltway. Part of it has to do with the fact that the media isn’t engrossed in covering the campaign the way it was four years ago. Having the Democratic nominee already set probably also helps. Personally I believe that the populous has just become apathetic, especially towards the current crop of declared candidates. None of the key players are really that exciting. The candidate pool boasts several has-beens (former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich), Mormons whose religion just doesn’t seem to sit well with the evangelical base of the party (former Governors Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Jon Huntsman of Utah), and ultra-conservatives pining for the Tea Party vote (Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Texas Governor Rick Perry).

All of this truly scares me. Not as a Republican, not as a political operative, but as a proud member of the millennial generation. I saw two-thirds of my peers vote for a president in 2008 that ran an elaborate PR campaign based around the words “hope” and “change” rather than discuss anything substantive on the trail. It also didn’t help that Barack Obama established himself as a true rock star by taking a break from campaigning in July 2008 to tour Europe, or by breaking tradition and accepting the Democratic nomination for President at Invesco at Mile High Stadium in front of a giant Parthenon-esque backdrop rather than at the convention site.

On the surface what’s not to like about Obama’s programs designed to help the millennial voter? One of the oft-overlooked parts of the comprehensive healthcare reform package of 2010 was that it provided Americans under the age of 26 the opportunity to stay on their parents’ or guardians’ healthcare plan regardless of their circumstance. Obama’s administration has also worked diligently to help take some of the burden off of college graduates by eliminating student loans for those who go into public service upon graduation. But all of these new programs have resulted in trillions of dollars added to the federal debt and a massive bloating of the federal budget that we just won’t be able to afford in years to come. And what my peers often forget when they lobby for things like universal healthcare and expanded welfare benefits is that we will be the ones paying for all of this when were in our middle age–and laden with college tuition for our children, mortgage payments, and the need to put aside money for our eventual retirement.

I kept telling myself that we could right this wrong, that we would retake Congress in 2010 (we almost got there) and hold onto both chambers while winning back the presidency in 2012. Yet the more I see the GOP field in action the more I wonder why we are giving Obama a second term. I can’t see the youth voter flocking around Santorum, or Bachmann, or Gingrich any more than they liked John McCain in 2008. We need a Republican who will help us find jobs and buy our first homes now but will do all this without mortgaging our future with high taxes and no social security funds. We need someone who respects our views on issues such as gay marriage and gun rights. I don’t know who this candidate is–or even if one exists–but unless the candidates start catering to their youngest voters Obama will certainly have no problem winning over this demographic next November, and in turn, retain his current residence.

Spin in Polling: The Healthcare Debate

By Katie LaPotin

Taking a small break from British politics for the moment, across the pond in the United States Republicans and Democrats alike are dealing with the aftermath of the healthcare vote in Congress. Republicans are celebrating for the most part while Democrats in swing seats are working on saving face. Almost all polls taken over the past six months have a majority of Americans opposing the reforms just passed by Congress last month, and a Quinnipiac poll taken just after the bill passed has 49% of registered voters disapproving of the changes.

American voters generally agree on the need for healthcare reform. This has never been the issue at stake. Where the debate comes in is over the implementation of the reform. And that is where spin doctoring comes in…

Republican pollster Frank Luntz once said that “It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.” There are few times that this is truer than now. I work as a pollster by trade, and I see this phenomenon occur all the time. If I were to write a survey asking the question “Do you agree or disagree that health care reform is needed?” a majority of voters would likely agree. They would also agree if the question read “Do you agree or disagree that healthcare reform is needed to make the process less bureaucratic?” or “Do you agree or disagree that health care reform is needed so everyone has the opportunity to have healthcare insurance?”

Yet, looking at polling conducted over the past year on the topic, this is not the case. Looking at one recent poll in particular:

Q. As you may know, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are trying to pass final legislation that would make major changes in the country’s health care system. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it? (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, 19-21 March 2010, n=1053 adults, MoE=+3.0%)

39% Favor
59% Oppose
2% No Opinion

A follow-up question was then asked to those voters who opposed the reform:

Q. (IF OPPOSE) Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach towards healthcare is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?

39% Favor (from previous question)
43% Oppose, too Liberal
13% Oppose, not Liberal enough
5% No Opinion

As you can tell, there is bias to these questions—albeit not a political one. In the follow-up question, the pollster is trying to elicit a specific response from the voters about the political situation in Washington, D.C.—they want to know whether they think the Democrats in Washington have overstepped their bounds while writing the legislation. The same question could be used to ask about environmental policy, or gun control, or educational reforms.

And this is how all of the questions used by pollsters nationwide are being worded—less about the legislation and more about the reaction. And that my friends, is spin. Rather than looking at whether the American people want healthcare reform, we are asking about healthcare reform to spin the debate away from the general desire for reform to the public option, or whether the legislation has become political, or even if the Federal Government should be involved in the process of healthcare reform at all?

Spin is omnipresent and fits in well in the political world. To me, there is no politics without spin. And to some extent, there is no spin without politics.