American distrust of the media has reached an all-time high. Maybe…after all, I’m writing this while sipping from a Hillary Clinton coffee mug, wearing a Donald Trump shirt, and cackling maliciously, so can you really trust me? But all jokes aside, Americans do trust the media less than they have in recent years–only 32 percent of Americans say that they trust the media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly,” according to a new Gallup poll.

That’s the lowest level of trust in the media since Gallup began asking the question in 1972, and this year was marked by an 8 percent drop–a pretty sharp one given that the percentage has been hovering at low-mid 40s since 2008. But splitting up that 32 percent by party lines gives us an even clearer picture into who doesn’t like the media right now–conservatives.

While 51 percent of Democrats say they trust the media, Independents are at 30 percent. But only 14 percent of Republicans trust the media. That sounds low, and it is, but even more shocking is how large of a drop that represents. Last year, 32 percent of Republicans trusted the media, meaning we saw an 18 percent drop in the course of a year.

So…what changed this year? While conservative perception of the media has long been low–“lamestream media” entered our lexicon sometime in the mid-2000s–this drop is too sharp to just be attributed to normal trends. Instead, it seems like Donald Trump, and his serious anti-media rhetoric may be to blame.

He has had a very aggressive stance against the media, from yanking the Washington Post’s press pass to actually saying that he’s running against the media in mid-August. At a rally in Connecticut, Trump stated: “I’m not running against Crooked Hillary. I’m running against the crooked media. That’s what I’m running against.”

Bloomberg compiled a pretty intensive and deep look at Trump’s attacks on the media via Twitter, showing that he did attack the media more than Clinton from June 2015-August 2016. Andre Tartar stated:

Searching Trump’s roughly 5,000 tweets and retweets since his June 2015 launch for mentions of 25 major media organizations (listed below), Bloomberg Politics found nearly 1,000 examples through Friday morning. Of those, 256 messages were critical, and together they garnered more than 875,000 retweets and 2.4 million likes. Over the same period, Trump sent just 140 tweets attacking Clinton. Those got more than 1.2 million retweets and more than 3.3 million likes.

The media is at an interesting crossroads right now–there’s a lot of questions that both journalists and the American public are now being required to confront on a regular basis. How much should opinion writing be weighted? How awful really is clickbait? How many cat gifs are too many cat gifs?

Spoiler: all cat gifs are relevant. via GIPHY

Media distrust is at an all time high. But is it deserved, or is it another by-product of what is by all accounts a totally insane election year?

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Don’t You Like Us?: Media Distrust Hits All Time High, Thanks Trump appeared first on Law Street.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, he affected the future of the Republican party immensely, even though he ultimately lost the race. Although many argue that Goldwater’s loss began the revitalization of the conservative movement, it also marked the start of black Americans’ growing negative perception of the GOP. It’s a pattern that Donald Trump is poised to repeat with Latino voters this year, potentially establishing a negative trend.

Goldwater’s staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957–the bill striking down Jim Crow voting laws designed to deny voting rights to Black Americans–contributed to his high unfavorability ratings among black voters. According to Goldwater, his vote was purely a matter of resisting federal encroachment on states’ rights–but the specter of racism followed his campaign, leading to abysmal support from black voters.

Barry Goldwater courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Members of the Ku Klux Klan publicly endorsed Goldwater, and although he denounced their support, his opponent Lyndon B. Johnson made political hay out of the connection, which Goldwater wasn’t successfully able to escape. The whole situation sounds eerily similar to another GOP nominee not being able to detach himself from KKK support.

Goldwater’s race politics are the subject of discussion even today–in many ways, he was remarkably socially liberal for his party. By 1989, he stated that the Republican party had been overtaken by ‘kooks,’ and in the 1990s, Goldwater approved of several progressive measures, such as gays serving in the military and marijuana legalization. Martin Luther King Jr. put it very well: “While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists.”

Although Goldwater isn’t the sole cause of this divide, he certainly coincided with its beginning. Nonwhite voters in 1960 only carried a 22 point deficit in Republican votes–the same divide present with female voters, although in the opposite direction. During this period, white and nonwhite voters disagreed, but not overwhelmingly so. That all changed in the next election–and the divide that followed is still present today.

In the election of 1964, nonwhite voters opposed Goldwater 94 to 6, marking the steepest voting difference among a minority group in U.S. history–until Barack Obama received 95 percent of the black vote in 2008. This is an example of a stark difference between Latino and black voters–ever since the 1964 election, black voters have supported Democratic candidates by an average of 78 points, while Latino voters’ support was only 45 points on average, with splits as close as 9 points in some years.

Check out the graphs below to see the voting patterns by group. The graphs use data on racial and ethnic voting groups from Gallup and the Roper Center, to show actual voting percentages by each group. Click here to read more about the data.

After Barry Goldwater, Black voters went blue overwhelmingly for decades.

Latino voters preferred Democratic candidates in every election but often by slim margins.

This year, Donald Trump’s attitudes, positions, and comments regarding Latino Americans and immigration may be a ‘Goldwater moment’ for the minority voter bases. In almost every measurable way, Trump rates worse among minority voters than Goldwater. Whereas Goldwater served as a blockade for civil rights, he didn’t openly express racist or xenophobic opinions. Trump has no policy precedent to refer to but has ample opinions–many of which are categorically racist.

A candidate as blatantly offensive as Donald Trump sours the party’s relationship with Latino voters, directly contradicting the GOP’s efforts to connect with those voters. While we’ll have to wait until November for voting results, current favorability ratings paint a difficult picture for Trump. A June Washington Post/ABC survey found that 89 percent of Latinos saw Trump unfavorably. That number was 94 percent for black voters, which is staggeringly high, but the same divide was present between Barack Obama and both of his Republican challengers. These numbers don’t exactly correlate to votes, but they help create an estimate.

Here’s one last graph to show exactly what Trump’s effect could be on Latino voters. Note that this graph is speculative and the added election year assumes that Latino Americans will vote according to their current favorability perceptions of Trump as a candidate. The graph below illustrates how a new divide could emerge:

Trump’s record-high unfavorable rating among Latino voters could signal the largest party split since the 1970s.

Donald Trump’s numbers among Latinos are the worst his party has had in over 45 years–and that’s only half of the bad news for the GOP. Not currying favor with Latinos may not have cost Reagan or the Bushes the presidency, but it may very well cost Trump–Latinos are the largest ethnic or racial minority in the United States, making up 17 percent of the general population. Coupled with black Americans at 12 percent, these minorities are no longer so ‘minor,’ and can’t be ignored by candidates hoping to win a popular vote. While Trump might still be able to improve his standing with Latino voters, it will be an uphill battle. Trump may not be as well spoken, intellectual, or experienced as Barry Goldwater, but he may prove to be just as divisive.

Notes:

Graphs created using polling data from Gallup (1952 – 1972) and The Roper Center (1976 – 2012).

1. The term “Latino” in this analysis refers to voters self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic in polls. The term “black” refers to voters self-identifying as African American or black in polls.
2. Group voting data from 1952 to 1972 only distinguishes between white and nonwhite voters. While these two groups voted similarly–but to different degrees in later elections–there is not precise data on how they may have differed before 1972. 
3. The third graph is speculative and is meant to show that Latinos’ current attitudes toward Trump are more negative than the group has ever demonstrated against a Republican candidate based on past election results.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump This Generation’s Goldwater? appeared first on Law Street.

If my Facebook newsfeed is anything to go off of, people my age hate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’ll see videos with titles like “HILLARY EXPOSED,” “$HILLARY STEALS THE ELECTION,” and “WHO SAID IT, TRUMP OR HITLER?” shared thousands of times, most of which are accompanied by the little angry-face reaction emoji. But, of course, that’s not representative of the general public right? If you’re friends with people who share your political views, the internet is a room full of people who applaud everything you say and hate your enemies. If you’re visiting websites like Reddit or the Huffington Post, you’re going to have a much different comments-section experience than at Breitbart or The National Review. You can’t get a fair take on who likes whom on the internet, so to escape the thought-bubbles of social media, I turned to polling to answer the question: What does America really think of our presumptive nominees?

Favorability is measured in a shockingly simple way–surveys ask Americans how they view a candidate, and provide options from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable.” The data suggest that all the online negativity comes from a real place. Even though Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than any other candidate, her average favorability is 38.4 percent. Donald Trump also has a really bad favorability rating, sitting 10 points below Clinton – at 28.4 percent. Pathetic–sad!

Trump and Clinton have a similar problem–if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them. Trump’s fanbase is larger than anyone predicted, and stark-raving mad dedicated to his cause. His detractors are even more numerous, and just as incensed by what he says and does. Clinton’s campaign is a savvy political juggernaut, and her careful planning has all-but secured the Democratic nominee. Despite her success, over forty percent of voters have a strongly negative view of her.

How do these candidates that Americans don’t like continue winning?  Voters might not be in love with Hillary Clinton, but they’re voting for her as the lesser of two evils. If you only see Clinton and Trump being viable options for the presidency, the decision is made very simple for most voters. It’s also important not to be too cynical–nearly half of voters see Clinton and Trump as favorable (although very different halves, I imagine.) It’s not that everyone hates the almost-nominees, just that they are extremely divisive in the American public.

We’re in a tough position now, as most Americans find themselves rooting for the candidate they hate the least–a far cry from the Obama ’08 enthusiasm that energized the Democratic party just two elections ago. An election as important as this one shouldn’t be treated so dispassionately by voters, because a low turn-out could tilt the election the way you’re actually afraid of. An old adage fits well here: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Candidates America Hates Keep Winning? appeared first on Law Street.

We are constantly bombarded with headlines talking about presidential candidate Donald Trump as the frontrunner of the Grand Old Party, and we often ask “why?” and “what are people thinking?” and “when is he going to go away?” You know, causal questions. We all see the percentages, but how many people across the county really like Trump?

Only 33 percent, apparently.

According to the most recent two-week average from Gallup, 33 percent of Americans surveyed nationwide had a favorable view and 60 percent had an unfavorable view of the businessman, who has risen in the polls and garnered a hefty amount of media attention because of his fiery attitude and defiance of political norms and correctness.

In Gallup’s findings, Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport explains that Trump, “has a higher unfavorable rating than any nominated candidate from either of the two major parties going back to the 1992” (1992 was the first year Gallup recorded favorability percentages).

While Trump’s number seems a bit extreme, some of the other candidates aren’t too far behind.

Across all Americans, Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable rating is at 52 percent; Jeb Bush, 45 percent; Chris Christie, 38 percent; Ted Cruz, 37 percent; Marco Rubio, 33 percent; Bernie Sanders, 31 percent; and Ben Carson, 30 percent.

Check out a graph of some of the other ratings (modern and historical) below:

Data courtesy of Gallup.

This puts Trump’s net favorability in the negatives at -27 percent, and according to Gallup, is higher than Clinton and Bush’s net -10 percent favorability.

“The bottom line is that Trump now has a higher unfavorable rating than any candidate at any time during all of these previous election cycles,” said Newport. “That conclusion takes into account the fact that unfavorable ratings tend to rise in the heat of a general election campaign as the barbs, negative ads and heightened partisanship are taken to their highest levels.”

In the 1992 election, Bill Clinton’s highest unfavorable rating was 49 percent, while opponent George H.W. Bush’s unfavorable rating was higher and closest to Trump’s at 57 percent. In 2008, Barack Obama’s unfavorable rating ratings maxed at 37 percent and in 2012 raised to 48 percent.

The moral of the story is that if we blame Obama for everything now and he still had lower unfavorable ratings then, who knows what the world will become if a man like Trump becomes president. So, don’t believe everything you read about how much everyone likes Trump–it’s not technically true. 

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump is the Most Unfavorable Presidential Candidate In Recent Years appeared first on Law Street.

Tonight will be the first Republican primary debate of the new year, and the seven candidates that made it on to the big stage are expected to talk about a whole wide range of issues. But one issue that has been notably absent from the debates so far has been science–particularly climate change. These are issues that are going significantly affect future generations, and that’s why a non-profit called ScienceDebate.org has rallied some kids to request that the 2016 presidential candidates talk about science:

The fantastic ad was created by ScienceDebate.org, a nonprofit which features a petition asking the candidates for president (and other elected offices) to debate and talk about science, medicine, technology, and climate change in their campaigns. The petition reads:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for public debates in which the U.S. presidential and congressional candidates share their views on the issues of science and technology policy, health and medicine, and the environment

The nonprofit argues that the American people support hearing about scientific issues in the debate. According to ScienceDebate.org and Research!America, in a recent national poll:

87 percent of likely voters think the candidates for president ought to be well versed on science issues. 91 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Independents also said the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss key science-based challenges facing the US.

Those stats are interesting, because it does seem like Americans want to hear politicians talk about science almost across-the-board. However, it’s kind of unclear exactly what aspects of science they want actually discussed. Climate change, for example, remains a huge point of contention in American politics–according to a ABC/Washington Post poll conducted in late November, 36 percent of Americans don’t think that climate change is a big problem, and 51 percent think scientists disagree on climate change, despite the fact that a vast majority do not disagree.

That being said, regardless of how you feel about climate change (and other scientific issues) it is important to know where the candidates stand. I’d like to see the Republican candidates talk about it tonight (as would the kids from from the above video), but given their track record to date, it’s probably not likely.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Will the Presidential Candidates Talk About Science? appeared first on Law Street.

If you haven’t already heard, Deez Nuts–the independent candidate from Iowa–is polling at nine percent in North Carolina and close to that in other early primary states. Deez Nuts will obviously never be president, but a series of recent polls may highlight the issues with other, more ordinary polls when they are conducted so early on in an election cycle. While videos of news anchors attempting to seriously report the poll’s findings are certainly hilarious, Deez Nuts may tell us something deeper about polls in general.

But first, who is Deez Nuts and how did he manage to get on a poll like this in the first place? The poll featuring the illustrious Iowan Independent was conducted by Public Policy Polling (PPP), a liberal polling firm that produces polls for the public as well as its paying clients. After the poll’s results went viral, reporters finally started to ask the question: who is Deez Nuts? Deez Nuts, according to several media reports, is actually a 15-year-old boy from Iowa named Brady Olsen. While Olsen is two decades away from being constitutionally eligible to run for president, Deez Nuts has officially submitted a statement of candidacy with the Federal Elections Comission for the 2016 election. Jim Williams, a polling specialist at PPP, told the Daily Beast that his company received an email saying, “I’m Deez Nuts. I’m running. Here’s my filing statement. Would you poll me?” The company’s reasoning–according to its Twitter account–“YOLO.”

#YOLOhttps://t.co/p1aZw9wiCf

— PublicPolicyPolling (@ppppolls) August 21, 2015

This isn’t the first time PPP has run a rather eccentric poll. Public Policy Polling is also the company that compared Americans’ approval ratings of random things with their approval rating of Congress. This poll led to headlines like, “Congress is less popular than lice, colonoscopies and Nickelback.” The firm has also received a fair amount of scrutiny from the media for allegedly “herding” its poll results, which involves adjusting a poll’s findings to fit better with the results of other polls or the polling average. While PPP may have herded previous polls, it is (so far) the only firm to survey people about Mr. Nuts, so no polling average exists for comparison.

PPP conducted three surveys asking voters about Deez Nuts–whether they viewed him favorably and whether they would vote for him, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump. Relative to the other two candidates, he polled at seven percent in Iowa, eight percent in Minnesota, and nine percent in North Carolina where Clinton and Trump received 38 and 40 percent respectively. Here are the results reported by ABC6 Columbus (yes, this was actually aired on TV):

#DeezNuts is a registered Pres candidate, and he’s gaining in polls (Yes you read that right) http://t.co/pTEkImqRPy pic.twitter.com/H2RJNyveIH — WSYX ABC 6 (@wsyx6) August 20, 2015

There are several potential reasons why North Carolina voters may have chosen Deez Nuts over the Democratic and Republican frontrunners. Some may not like the available selection of candidates, others may be dissatisfied with politics or both parties in general, and some may not be able to resist choosing Deez Nuts when asked who they would vote for. What is more important than the reasons behind this poll’s results, is the fact that people’s opinions will likely change a lot before primary elections and even more so before the general election. Among North Carolina voters, Deez Nuts has a six percent favorability rating, 13 percent view him unfavorably, and 81 are not sure.

While this poll was certainly fun, it does point to some potential drawbacks of early polls in general. When people know little about the candidates, name recognition–or in Mr. Nuts’ case, an unorthodox name–could be enough to inflate poll numbers, but as time goes on and people learn more about who the candidates are and what stand for, the poll results start to adjust. As the campaign continues, candidates may also get caught up in controversy or flat out embarrass themselves–causing their numbers to fall. What’s more, polls that take head-to-head matchups for a general election before the primary has even occurred, like PPP’s poll with Deez Nuts, do not provide much useful information the summer before an election year. For obvious reasons, giving three options from different parties more than a year before the election and several months before the primaries will not give a great picture of what the matchup actually looks like. As Danielle Kurtzleben from NPR puts it, “That might tell you a little bit about how the election would turn out if it were held today, but unless you’re reading this on Nov. 8, 2016, the election is not today.”

This is not to say that polls will never predict the outcome of an election well before people cast their votes, but accurate predictions generally come when candidates are established and already have other structural advantages–for example a president running for reelection or a sitting vice president will already have high polling numbers among members of his or her own party well before the primary. Put simply, it’s not the fact that someone is polling well, rather the reasons behind it that determine the likelihood that they will win the election. Early polls can be accurate, but in these cases you often don’t need a poll to tell you a candidate is popular. PPP’s Deez Nuts poll made for some great headlines and some early election fun, but it also shows the importance of looking at a poll and the questions that it asked before you draw your own conclusions.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Can we Learn from Deez Nuts? appeared first on Law Street.

According to the American Values Index, a project created by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), the United States is becoming increasingly multi-religious. The tool, which allows users to see the religious and political views of people around the country, is a fascinating use of public data and polling. It’s also an interesting look into the changing demographics and ideological priorities in the U.S.

PRRI is a nonpartisan research organization that declares its goals as follows:

PRRI’s mission is to help journalists, opinion leaders, scholars, clergy, and the general public better understand debates on public policy issues and the role of religion and values in American public life by conducting high quality public opinion surveys and qualitative research.

The United States has long been seen as a consistently white Christian nation, and demographically speaking, that characterization was fair for a long time; however, according to the American Values Index, white Christians are now a minority in 19 states. The percentage of white Christians has fallen to as low as 20 percent in Hawaii, 25 percent in California, and 33 percent in New Mexico.

Furthermore, America’s Protestant tradition is also on the decline. Only 47 percent of the nation overall is Protestant. Notably, some of these shifting statistics come from the increasing amount of religious unaffiliated Americans. Twenty-two percent of Americans now don’t identify with any particular religious tradition, and given that those ranks are dominated by young people, those numbers are on the rise.

It will be interesting to see if these revelations play any part in the 2016 elections that are already ramping up. A national survey by Public Policy Polling in February revealed that 57 percent of Republicans polled answered “yes” to the following question: “Would you support or oppose establishing Christianity as the national religion of the United States?” Thirty percent of those polled said “no” and 13 percent said they weren’t sure. Regardless of the fact that such a proposition blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, it also shows a blind disregard of the actual demographics of the United States.

There are specific areas where this attitude is more prevalent. Just a few weeks ago, members of the Kootenai County Idaho Republican Party put up a proposal that Idaho be declared a “Christian state.” That measure was eventually tabled, however.

The American Values Index also highlighted some interesting statistics about ideological views in the United States. For example, the conservative split on social issues, particularly abortion and gay marriage, is very noticeable. Young white evangelical protestants are pretty much split on the issue of gay marriage, while their older counterparts stand in strong opposition. However, both generations agree on the topic of abortion, with roughly two-thirds saying it should be illegal in all or most cases.

The American Values Index, in addition to being a fun tool to play around with for those like myself who love data, creates in interesting window into the minds of American voters, particularly on socio-cultural issues. As we move closer to the hotly anticipated 2016 elections, it will be interesting to see what part these values issues play.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Values Index Highlights Increasing Multi-Religious Culture appeared first on Law Street.

The 2008 election was a great source of pride for the Millennial generation; their voting rate was higher that year than in any other recent election. Analysts and pundits started emphasizing the importance of online campaigning as the way to reach young voters. But 2008 turned out to be more of an isolated case, as turnout among the 18-29 age group decreased by nearly nine percent in 2012. Young voters often trumpet support for social causes and tout their progressive political views, but the record shows that they frequently underrepresent themselves at the polls.

Turnout data suggests that the 2004 and 2008 elections, which saw two consecutive increases in young voters, unfortunately are anomalies. According to a Census Bureau report, the 2004-2008 increase seems “temporary and not representative of a permanent shift towards greater young-adult engagement in presidential elections.” Sure, you can argue that voter turnout is always low among young adults, but what is unique about this group of the electorate is how their views differ from previous generations.

Millennials’ views are unique

Two recent studies, one by the Pew Research Center and another other by Reason-Rupe, reveal just how different Millennials are from older generations. Both reports show that Millennials tend to be more liberal when it comes to social issues, and more centrist in terms of economics. The interactive chart below illustrates a few of the many distinct views held by Millennials.

One of the most striking findings from these reports is the degree to which Millennials do not associate with political parties. Millennials are actually more willing to identify themselves with a particular cause than with a political party. While you may conclude that this generation’s opposition to parties and institutions indicates low political interest, their strong support for social issues may refute that claim. Millennials are not less interested in politics than previous generations; instead, they have focused their support on individual issues, not party platforms.

Derek Thomson, a writer for The Atlantic, criticized the findings of recent reports in a article titled “Millennials’ Political Views Don’t Make Any Sense.” Much of Thomson’s piece focuses on what he perceives as the generation’s incompatible views of economics and the role of the government. One of Thomson’s several examples includes the finding that 65 percent of Millennials want to cut spending, while 62 percent want more spending on jobs and infrastructure. Although those two points are not mutually exclusive—you can have spending cuts in areas other than jobs and infrastructure—Thomas does have a point. The economic and ideological views of Millennials appear as if they are still forming, but the generation’s support for social issues like gay marriage and legal status for undocumented immigrants is surprisingly clear.

Millennials are different…so what?

So far everything in this article has probably just reiterated conventional wisdom: millennials are socially liberal and have a more favorable view of recent social trends—but the issue is that these views are unlikely to actually change anything. Although the Millennial generation has a unique perspective, their attitudes have not turned into political engagement. Why? Millennials don’t vote.

The Census Bureau’s report on young adult voters highlights the significant turnout gap between different generations. What the bureau calls “under-voting” occurs when a population group casts fewer votes relative to its share of the voting-eligible population. For example, in 2012, the 18-29 age group made up 21.2 percent of the voting population, but only made up 15.4 percent of the total votes cast, thus under-voting by 7.1 percent—and yes, that’s a lot.

Courtesy of The Census Bureau

The graph above shows exactly how bad Millennials have been at showing up on election day. Relative to their share of the eligible voter population, Millennials cast far fewer ballots. (Eligible voters are essentially anyone over the age of 18, though some states also restrict the voting rights of certain groups like felons and the mentally impaired).

This trend becomes even more alarming if you look at turnout for midterm and local elections. While American voters as a whole are pretty bad at turning out for midterm elections (the 2010 voting rate was just 37 percent—16 percent lower than the 2008 presidential election), young voter turnout is particularly low. Fewer than 25 percent of voters aged 18-29 voted in the 2010 midterms, according to CIRCLE (The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement). And recent polling indicates that this year’s elections will be no different.

The Status Quo Lives On

Millennials are the most diverse generation in American history, they have unique political views, and care strongly about social issues, yet they have caused little change politically. While there may not be a competition between younger voters and older voters, the earlier generations consistently beat Millennials to the polls and have their views reflected in the government.

A research project conducted by The New Republic, using data from TargetSmart Communications, revealed “the only split in American politics that matters” is the one between reliable and unreliable voters. They found that the people who vote every Election Day, as a matter of habit, are considerably more likely to be older and typically vote conservative.

If the Millennial generation wants political change and would like its views to be represented in Congress, the first step is clear: they need to vote–in every election. The next step is to engage politically by contacting representatives, attending local government meetings, helping campaigns, and supporting issues by doing more than signing an online petition. Millennials have already proven to be great volunteers who care about their communities, but that engagement does not always translate to political change. Until young adults vote and interact with their government, policies will not turn in their favor.

—

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Millennials as a Source of Political Change: It’s Just Not Happening appeared first on Law Street.