Once more...I never said that the youth didn't decidedly vote for Obama. The youth has voted democratic in most elections by a majority, but this was certainly a larger majority than usual. Even with a larger majority, we still can not be referred to as "the" reason. Was it different than in past years? Yes, but so were the other age groups' voting patterns. Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups? Yes, but the change was not big enough to make us "the" reason that Obama won; youth Obama voters did not make up 51% of the vote. We may have been the biggest change, but that change still did not make us the majority vote, and thus we are not "the" reason for anyone's election. No one gets elected based on the fact that they received 13% of votes.
There was an uncanny change, yes. But it wasn't big enough of a change within a large enough voting population to make it "the" reason. Sure, you can say that if 66% (not 68%) of youth didn't vote for Obama, he wouldn't have won. But then we can also say that if 52% of 30-44 year olds didn't vote for Obama, he also wouldn't have won. In fact, he would have lost by more votes if the 52% of 30-44 year olds were absent than if the 66% of youth were absent.
We were "a" change, and we were probably the biggest change as far as percentages, but we can not make up a voting majority and thus can not be "the" reason that any candidate wins. The youth's 13% of the vote, regardless of how drastic or uncanny of a change it was, can not be pointed to as the only reason Obama won. He required (and received) more than 13% of the vote to win, and the majority of those necessary votes were supplied by other age groups.
If Florida had only made their 32 foul shots, they would have lost 70-32. If Florida wouldn't have gone to the line at all, but would have made all of their other points, they would have lost 70-46. You can point to either presence of points as "the" reason they won, but the truth is that they needed both sets of points to win. Neither individual set of points is "the" reason they won.
I guess we'll both just have to let the horse we're beating rot in peace (after I get in my last swing
). By the way, I'm not arguing
against your points, they are all valid in the sense that you're making them. And while what you're saying is (still) true, you still seem to not be grasping the point. Well, you kind of are grasping it, but not realizing it maybe...
"but this was certainly a larger majority than usual"
and
"Was it more drastic of a change than the other age groups? Yes"
and
"We may have been the biggest change".
You followed each of those statements with the obvious "but..it still didn't make us the the 'biggest' group.....blah, blah, blah". Which is very true, and has never been my point.
All of those things you admitted to in the quotes above are my main point. At no point did the youth vote ever become the largest number of votes. But being the
biggest change, the
most drastic change, and
larger % than normal....all contributed to why I'm saying it could be labeled "the" reason.
The 50% to 54% he received in the other age groups was well within a "normal" range of voting %. It's not unusual for one candidate to get 52% or whatever, of an age group. It's not unusual to shoot 50 FGs in a basketball game. Both things are totally normal, expected, and therefore not even noteworthy.
However, getting 68% of a particular age group is a big deal It is drastic. It is out of the ordinary. Shooting 40 foul shots in a game is unusual. It is excessive. It is noteworthy when the game is over.
Why do you think Lebo said this after the Florida game? (and "he's an idiot is not an acceptable answer
)
Foul shots were the difference in the game
Why do you think he said that?
It didn't account for most of their points. And teams shoot foul shots every game, so it was nothing new. The reason it was emphasized, and even called "
the difference", was because it was out of the ordinary in
relation to expectations or "the norm" of any regular basketball game. It stood out. It was excessive. And the unusually high number of foul shots was instrumental and unique in it's level of contribution to Florida's point total. Instrumental to the point that Lebo, when looking at the loss, was led to point to it as "the difference in the game".
What I'm doing is no different. The 68% youth vote is the exact same thing. It was out of the ordinary in relation to expectations and "the norm" of regular elections. It stood out. It was excessive. The unusually high % was instrumental and unique in it's level of contribution to Obama's vote total. Instrumental to the point that I, and tons of the press, when looking at the election results, were led to point to it as "
the difference" in the election.
MSNBC -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27525497/Youth vote may have been key in Obama's win
Young voters had 'record turnout,' preferred Democrat by wide margin
TIME -
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700525,00.htmlObama's Youth Vote Triumph
CBS News -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/15/opinion/main3837466.shtmlHis victory may well be the first in which the youth vote played a decisive role.
Thenextright.com -
http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/the-straight-ticket-youth-voteObama's entire popular vote majority is accounted for by his increased appeal to youth and African Americans.
On a different note, kinda, here is some of the text to the link posted above. I hadn't seen this broken down anywhere before, but it's very interesting and makes the last quote I posted above make sense.
People have been focusing on whether the youth vote was up. It was -- slightly: going from 17 to 18 percent. But the real story about the youth vote is not how many "new" voters Obama got to show up. It's how he produced a gargantuan 25% swing among existing young voters, or those who were sure to vote for the first time anyway.
How big?
18 percent times a 25 percent increase in the Democratic margin equals 4.5 points, or a majority of Obama's popular vote margin. Had the Democratic 18-29 vote stayed the same as 2004's already impressive percentage, Obama would have won by about 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana.
Related to this are African Americans. Here too, turnout was up a point from 12% to 13%, or Census + 1. But that's only part of the story. The biggest part is Obama's increased margins, moving from 88-11 in '04 to 95-4 in '08. The black vote's net contribution to Democrats moved from 9.7 points to 11.8 points (91% x 13%), or an increase of 2.1 points.
Now, let's be generous and shave 10% off the youth effect assuming some of these youths are African American, but also tempered by the fact that the young black vote is already so highly Democratic that a 25% swing is impossible here. 4.1 percent (18-29) + 2.1 percent (AA's) equals 6.2 percent. Obama's current popular vote margin is 6.1 percent.
Obama's entire popular vote majority is accounted for by his increased appeal to youth and African Americans.