Recent Quinnipiac poll. Question 4 for voters 18-34.
Clinton 31%
Trump 26%
Johnson 29%
Stein 15%
I’m not shilling for Johnson or anything, but this is rather remarkable. Or it is to me at least. Does this mean anything other than that Clinton and Trump are both unpopular? Do young people really like libertarianism or just weed?
Young people seem to be drawn to the … non-traditional candidates.
Ron Paul (back in the day), Bernie Sanders, and now apparently Johnson, all seem to have gotten a significant boost from younger voters.
Lucky they don’t vote!
Seriously though, I am surprised by this too. I could see a bigger share than the general population but never would have put him in 2nd.
The link didn’t work, so I can’t see the original story. But two things to remember.
As a group, young people tend not to vote.
They probably haven’t read the parts of theLibertarian platform that oppose government environmental regulation, banking regulation, any kind of universal health care, etc.
I doubt many people of any age have read any of the candidates’ platforms.
Is this like “we need to pass it so we can find out what’s in it?”: “We need to elect him now so we can Feel The Johnson after the election.”
If the OP’s numbers are accurate and the election should actually shake out that way, I’m guessing we would be looking at a decision by the House of Representatives. Maybe not, since it’s only young voters represented in the polls, but it’s certainly an interesting thought.
Not only do young people have low rates of voting, but the proportions are probably very different among that subset who will vote. Does the Quinnipiac poll have a likely-voter filter, and does it break down those results by age, too?
The poll used a likely voter screen. I can’t find details of how large the sample of 18-34 years olds was?
Actually, that’s not the only thing remarkable about that poll: The percentages add up to 101%. OK, that could be due to rounding error, but I’ve never yet seen a poll that didn’t have 5% or so undecided or chose not to respond.
Over the whole sample for question #4, 3% of likely voters answered “DK/NA” and 0% answered “Someone else”. It was 0% for both in the 18-34 subset.
One word: Legalized weed.
Surely that would be two words, no?
Stein favors legalized weed. Something else accounts for Johnson being favored over her. Understanding of basic economics perhaps?
I don’t think this is it. Why would someone who understand basic economics support a candidate who does not understand basic economics?
I think the conventional answer is that since young voters are the least important voters due to their usually poor turnout, their issues tend to get ignored, which increases their support for parties outside the mainstream. As they age and become more important, and their generational peers get elected to office, they’ll tend to line up with one of the major parties.
Stein favors legalization. Johnson actually partakes.
It’s somewhat trendy for some young people to say they’re libertarian because they think it sounds cool and they don’t understand the moral bankruptcy of libertarianism (to be fair, neither do libertarians). It’s also trendy to say “OMFG isn’t it terrible that we have these two candidates I’m not voting for either” but when push comes to shove, all these third party wannabes will either stay home or vote for someone who actually has a chance.
It’s also trendy to dismiss things as trendy. See it a lot.
It doesn’t matter whether they have a chance or not. Your vote falls within the margin of error. It cannot decide an election. An election that is within 0.1% in any state is essentially a coin flip. It’s all about the luck of the recounts, which themselves have margins of error many times greater than 1 vote.
The day they invent a way to have an election involving more than a few thousand people where the count is 100% accurate will be the day that your vote can swing an election.