Despite Clinton’s arguments to the contrary, Barack Obama’s appeal to the youth vote is probably more important to the Democrats in November than Clinton’s ability to carry the big states. - FurryMalaysian

For some time now, Clinton’s argument has been that she can carry the big states, so important to Democrats in the general election. Her surrogates have been handily deriding younger voters for being “drunk on Obama Kool Aid”, the implication being that they’re voting with the head between their legs instead of the one between their shoulders. Apart from being incredibly insulting and condescending (like my uncle claiming that I – being young and obviously brainwashed by America – have no knowledge of the “true history of Taiwan” … like who Chiang Kai-Shek was; what did he take me for? An MTV kid?), they kinda conveniently glossed over a certain important point that quietly undermines Clinton’s entire argument about electability.

Alright, so it will mean that I’ll have to eat some crow. Yes, we youth DO think more with our dicks than our brains. It’s inherent in all youth – the impulsiveness, the idealism, the passion. Indeed, I might argue that it’s a rite of passage for all people to live for something – witness religion – and to throw oneself into the fight regardless of the consequences; and often without thinking about them at all. I don’t mean that we don’t think. The number of young people who hold very carefully considered opinions is surprising, and honestly while old people may have experience, they also hold some pretty ridiculous prejudices that most youth aren’t beholden to.

What I mean is that the young see things through a different lens; where the older and, to a considerable extent, those that have been through the school of hard knocks view things in terms of potential failure, whereas the young and the educated see only possibilities. Dare to fail, dare to dream. It’s a high flying, high stakes game that these – we – yuppies live. I guess this is what the whole “elitism” complaint is about; not about ivory towers and fat cats but about the high risk DAMN THE TORPEDOES philosophy that drives the latte-lite brigade. The lower-income, less educated members of the population pay the highest price of failure. The old simply carry too many scars. It isn’t surprising that these people most often vote conservative – change, dramatic change, is just too big a risk to take for people who’ve known failure or are most threatened by it. And having an untested rookie at the helm is just too big a leap for most of them to stomach.

Ok, so Obama has issues with the older and lower – sorry if that sounded rude – but that isn’t news and that sure as hell ain’t the case for him.

The case for Obama is enthusiasm. Bet you didn’t see that coming. Enthusiasm has been fuelling the democratic primary, driving record turnouts. Even now, after such a grueling race, the enthusiasm doesn’t seem to have been seriously dampened. Democratic turnouts are thumping the Republicans all over the place as small donations snowball to epic proportions, rattling the cages of large donors who once held the reins of power. This is where, most commentators agree, the Democrats have their largest advantage. But is it sustainable? THAT will depend on enthusiasm. Can either candidate maintain enthusiasm through the general? I don’t know.

What I *do* know is that disappointment and disenfranchisement can seriously dent enthusiasm. And herein lies the rub – with battle lines crystallized between candidates, Obamaniacs and Clintonistas are showing increasing disinclination to vote for the other candidate to the point where they’d vote for an ideological mismatch than their rival’s favorite. Would they be able to maintain their enthusiasm if their candidate lost? A snowball’s chance in hell. Resignation is not a suitable substitute for enthusiasm.

Ultimately, someone is going to be disappointed. And it’s been Obama who’s been turning out youths in record numbers. The cynical, apathetic youth who regard the entire system with distrust are the ones flocking to the Obama mantel. These are the first time voters, the long mythical “youth vote” that pollsters have been talking about for so long. These people are the most likely to feel disenfranchised by the system if their voice is ignored – especially since a Clinton victory will require an overturn of the popular vote by the democratic “Supers”. Such a “victory” would kill youth enthusiasm in this election as surely as George Lucas killed Star Wars and create an opening for a reformed GOP to seize the youth vote in the future (no evil undemocratic “Supers”). Remember, these are the idealistic youth – policy comes second to principle and what kind of principle would the dems stand by if the supers “steal” the election? Can the democrats survive a wholesale desertion of the youth vote during the general?

The prophecy of a democratic win in ’08 is built on the scale of democratic turnout during the primaries. If half of that fails to turn up, that prediction goes up in smoke. And the sorry truth about the older and the lower is that they’re more likely to turn up on election day than the latte-sipping, digg-spamming, iPod-wielding crowd who might just decide to release their angst at the system by refusing to participate in it.

Obama wins the nomination on the wings of apathy and his ability to transcend it.

This post was written by The Furry and mailed to me from some internet cafe. I guess he can’t do without his amateur punditry - IowaJim