The Real Political Revolution Would Be Getting Young People to Vote

Sen. Bernie Sanders is said to be the future of the Democratic Party. Not because he is beating Hillary Clinton -- he isn't -- but because his unvarnished populist appeal has inspired the next generation of liberal Democrats.

"Even if he loses this campaign ... Sanders might have already won a contest that will prove crucially important in America's political future," wrote Max Ehrenfreund in The Washington Post Monday.

"The Vermont senator has surpassed all expectations in the presidential race, creating a movement of impassioned supporters that is likely to shape politics for years to come," wrote Niall Stanage in The Hill Thursday.

Maybe. That theory has three problems. First, the Democratic Party was already growing more liberal. Two wars, a worldwide financial panic and a radicalized Republican Party did more to revitalize liberalism than Sanders did. Second, Sanders performed better with independents than Democrats.

Third and most important: A vast majority of young people didn't vote.

How can Sanders have built a movement on the strength of the youth vote if the youth vote doesn't show up on primary day? At best, claiming he represents the party's future is like a consolation prize. At worst, it feeds into the already entrenched notion among Democrats that all they need to do in order to win is wait for demographics to change the electorate.

To be sure, Sanders won young voters by a mile in the 2016 primary race: In Ohio, voters under 30 chose him over Clinton by 81 percent. The story is similar in populous heterogeneous states like Florida (64 percent), New York (65 percent), North Carolina (72 percent) and Illinois (86 percent).

But such a reading of exit polls is misleading.

In Illinois, the under-30 vote was just 17 percent of the total vote. Compare that to 46 percent of voters age 40-64, 22 percent 65 and older. In New York, 18 percent of voters were under 30 compared to 45 percent age 40-64, 19 percent 65 and older. Ditto for North Carolina (18 percent under 30, 49 percent age 40-64, 20 percent 65 and older) and Florida (15 percent under 30, 46 percent age 40-64, 25 percent 65 and older).

Compare those numbers to 2008.

The under-30 vote in New York was 15 percent but 33 percent age 45-59 and 30 percent 60 and older. In Florida, it was 9 percent but 33 percent age 45-59 and 39 percent 60 and older. In Illinois, the youth vote was 15 percent but 32 percent age 45-59 and 23 percent 60 and older. And in North Carolina, it was 14 percent but 34 percent age 45-59 and 26 percent 60 and older.

There are notable upticks, but not enough to suggest, as Stanage does, that Sanders has built a movement that's reshaping the political landscape. To put it another way, the so-called Sanders revolution resulted in turn-out numbers for young voters that are still very low.

These exit poll data, moreover, might obscure reality. In a 2007 study, political scientist Michael McDonald compared exit polling data to state voting records and found overstated significance given to young voters and understated significance given to older voters. In this year's New York primary, for instance, a third were age 50-64. It might be closer to half.

[SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections]

Sanders himself has said: "We are the future of the Democratic Party," noting his support among young voters. But surely the long-time member of Congress knows the Democratic Party's struggle to reach young voters, because young voters do not habitually pay attention to politics.

According to data compiled by researchers at Stanford and the University of Michigan, for every 100 elderly voters in 2008, the Barack Obama campaign reached 94. By contrast, for every 100 young voters, the campaign reached 23. Remember that Time called 2008 " The Year of the Youth Vote."

The idea of 2008 as a peak year in youth voting is also complicated by race. While 2008 saw a sharp rise among African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic voters, rates among young non-Hispanic white voters were flat, according to Michael P. Wattenberg. In " Is Voting for Young People?" the professor of political science at the University of California at Irvine said that from 2004-2008, young white voting rose by just 2 percent.

If the Bernie Sanders' campaign constitutes the future of the Democratic Party, that future depends on a very small slice of young white voters.

In other words, no future at all.

Sanders warned audiences throughout the 2016 primary that without a massive turnout of young voters, he can't beat Clinton's enormous built-in advantages. He isn't the first or last candidate to be disappointed by the youth vote. George McGovern ran a populist campaign in 1972, the first election after the voting age dropped to 18. Given his opposition to the Vietnam War, pundits believed he had a lock on millions of draft-age voters. In the end, they didn't show up. He lost to Richard Nixon by a landslide.

President Obama has been similarly disappointed. After the "Year of the Youth Vote," Obama supporters stayed home in 2010, delivering the House to the Republicans and halting his promising legislative agenda. The same thing happened in 2014 after Obama's reelection. Just 20 percent of voters age 18-29 voted in 2014, the lowest youth turnout ever recorded, according to the Stanford Social Innovation Review. That's out of more than 83 million individuals. After the Democrats lost the Senate, Obama said legal battles against voting rights violations and "dark money" in politics are important, but voting is more important.

"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country, because the people who tend not to vote are young," he said.

The Democrats and their media supporters may wish for a political revolution fueled by the enthusiasm of young Americans. But given the evidence and the history, that's not something on which to build a movement.

John Stoehr is a lecturer in political science at Yale and the 2016 Koeppel Journalism Fellow at Wesleyan.