Time for Hillary Clinton to Worry about Winning Over Young Voters

September 15, 2016

Democrats always have a big advantage among young voters, right? That supposition at the heart of this Los Angeles Times story about Hillary's get-out-the-vote efforts among this demographic:

It's a broad, multi-faceted effort ramping up this week intended to boost Clinton's numbers among voters ages 18 to 35. Polls show her leading Republican candidate Donald Trump among millennials, but there is uncertainty about whether they will turn out in large enough numbers to secure victory in key battleground states.

But are we certain this demographic is one of Hillary Clinton's strengths? Check out the Quinnipiac poll. Jill Stein is a nonentity among every age group older than 35 percent — 3 percent here, 1 percent there, 2 percent over there. But for voters from 18 to 34, Stein gets 15 percent. While Clinton is technically "winning" this demographic, she's at 31 percent, just two points ahead of Gary Johnson. And her margin isn't that much ahead of Trump's 26 percent.

The 2012 exit polls showed Obama winning voters from age 18 to 29 by a huge 60–36 percent margin over Romney. A weak performance among young voters matters a great deal for a Democratic candidate, because Republican candidates tend to win among both older working voters (45 to 65) and among voters 65 and older.

Harry Enten writes that Hillary Clinton is, at least for now, leaving a lot of votes on the table:

New SurveyMonkey data (shared with FiveThirtyEight) suggests that Clinton is winning under-25 voters by half as much as Obama did. And, moreover, the data suggests that these voters should be solidly Democratic.

Unlike many other pollsters, SurveyMonkey interviews thousands and thousands of people each week, so they're able to get a good sample of young voters. From Aug. 22 to 28, SurveyMonkey interviewed about 1,200 registered voters ages 18 to 24. Among them, Clinton led Donald Trump 41 percent to 27 percent, with 17 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 10 percent for the Green Party's Jill Stein.

But will Johnson and Stein really have that level of support on Election Day? Our Dan McLaughlin notes a big question for pollsters this cycle is "whether pollsters should be including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein — third party candidates historically tend to underperform their polls unless they reach a critical mass of support, and Stein at last check is still 8 states short of being on all 50 states' ballots."

Allahpundit wonders if the current numbers for Johnson and Stein are illusory:

Young adults really don't like Trump, it seems, but they're sufficiently ambivalent about Clinton to be holding on out her right now in great numbers. The good news for Trump is that there's no sign yet of any dam-break in Johnson's support nationally, which means he's still hoarding those young adults from Clinton. The bad news is that that might change in November if the election looks close. If Johnson's young voters head for the lifeboats, they're probably going to paddle towards Clinton. Consider all of this further evidence of why Obama is on the stump today and will be back on the stump repeatedly over the next two months. If Hillary can't convince young voters to re-create the Obama coalition for her, maybe he can.

Except . . . how many times in the past eight years have we seen Obama try to get his voters out for some other Democrat when he wasn't on the ballot — Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, House and Senate Democrats in the 2010 midterms, House and Senate Democrats in the 2014 midterms — to no avail? Is it that the Obama coalition only comes out to vote when it's a presidential year? Or does the Obama coalition only come out to vote when Obama is on the ballot?

If you're a Johnson or Stein voter frustrated by the two choices . . . do you just stay home?

NRSC: Hey, Nobody's Thinking about Staying Home in November, Right?

The Republican National Senatorial Committee would like to remind you, "This election isn't just about the White House."

The ad title: "It's about the majority." Not-so-subtle subtext: Whatever you think about our nominee, don't forget about those Senate races!

The Dangers Awaiting Our Next President

As noted yesterday, I don't think the next president, whether it's Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, or some other candidate who pulls off the political equivalent of the Golden Bears kickoff return against Stanford — "the band is on the electoral college!" — is going to have a lot of time to play celebrity-in-chief.

How certain can anyone be that there isn't a serious crisis coming in 2017 or beyond? What happens if China does something more than saber-rattling in the South China Sea? How long will the status quo in North Korea hold? How long until chemical weapons migrate from the battlefield in Syria to become a weapon of terrorists in the West? Just how emboldened is Putin, and how much does he want to push NATO? If Russian troops start massing on the borders of the Baltic states, will Western capitals counter them or start looking for a way to placate the Kremlin?

And that's just looking abroad. It's not hard to picture the Zika outbreak getting worse or some communicable disease arriving on an international flight, another wave of migrants flooding our southern border, a Bataclan-style attack from terrorists in an American city, cyber-terrorism or cyber-warfare from hostile nations or groups . . .

Once Again, Do Republican Voters Care about What GOP Lawmakers Do?

Back in May, I noted the common complaint: "Those Republicans in Washington never do anything!"

That month, House Republicans passed 18 bills to address opioid addiction.

This week, the House passed a big, tough reform bill for the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Are you going to hear a lot about it on talk radio? Cable television news? There's nothing about it on Drudge right now. I suppose if one pays attention to what the U.S. House of Representatives is doing, it might undermine the narrative that Paul Ryan is the worst Republican leader ever.

Here's what's in the bill:

House Republicans on Wednesday passed a controversial Veterans Affairs reform bill that would make it easier to fire department workers despite concerns of prominent Democrats that the changes would do little to provide better services.

The measure also includes an overhaul of the department's benefits appeals process, a provision that veterans groups have fervently lobbied for and White House officials have praised. But that's likely not enough to get bipartisan support to move the measure in the Senate.

A similar accountability measure has been stalled for months there, and Democrats in that chamber have also expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the proposal. White House officials this week asked for the appeals reform aspects to be moved as a separate, stand alone bill, apart from the problematic firing rules.

But supporters said the action (which passed by a 310-116 vote, with all opposition from Democrats) is needed to reform the culture within the department.

Unlike past VA accountability legislation, many of the provisions would apply to any department employee, not just senior leaders. The bill would shorten the firing and demotion process to no more than 77 days, give the VA secretary the authority to recoup bonuses and suspend pensions of disciplined employees, and limit workers' appeals of those actions.

"Everyone in government knows that the civil service laws that were once meant to promote the efficiency of government are now obsolete and make it almost impossible to remove a poor-performing employee," said bill sponsor Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.

One of the biggest complaints revealed in the GOP primary is the argument from primary voters that Republicans on Capitol Hill aren't doing anything; they're out-of-touch, they're insulated, they have no idea about the kinds of problems that ordinary Americans face every day.

Are Republican legislators really that insulated and out-of-touch? Or is it that voters hear exceptionally little about what Congress is actually doing? Doesn't a preponderance of the evidence suggest the political press — following their audience — finds legislation boring? It doesn't get clicks, it doesn't get ratings.

Yes, it's a lot more fun to hear that that Colin Powell wrote in an e-mail that Bill Clinton is "still d**king bimbos at home."

ADDENDA: Thanks to all the Twitter followers.

On the pop-culture podcast, Mickey and I discussed the increasing rate of scary clown sightings. There are now quite a few cases of sightings reported in Georgia, including someone who said a clown stood in the middle of the road and nearly caused an accident.

You notice they don't have this problem in Texas.

Judge: "Why did you shoot that man?"

Defendant: "He was wearing a scary clown mask."

Judge: "Charges dismissed." (bangs gavel)