What Young People See in 3rd Party Candidates

After Reading 'Comments' In Radical Websites

Here's a typical comment:  "Lesz see..., angry, loud-mouth entertainer vs. hider of ties to big business...; and they're surprised I'm voting for Gary or Jill?  Come on." ***

Let's take a look at some of the reasons Hillary Clinton--and Donald Trump--are having trouble attracting young voters.  I list five, most-to-least important, and for Clinton, since her case is the more nuanced.   I then rate each as a percentage of the problem faced.

1.  Republicans in Congress refuse to cooperate (2009-2016).  On the day that Barack Obama's inauguration in Jan. 2009, Mitch McConnell (R - KY) secretly met with other leading Republican senators to agree on a blanket policy of obstruction to everything Obama.  And that strategy worked.  With the help of the press, which likes to blame both parties for disfunction, the ill-repute of 'politicians' has been turned into a vague frustration with the status quo, with 'change' the obvious antidote.   Clinton: 30%

2.  Many young voters are well enough off not to think twice.  Wealthier, and often non-minority voters, who have a cushion to fall back on, needn't worry too long about another financial collapse, about unaffordable health insurance, or about being discriminated against, should Trump win.  This is usually an unconscious reason.    Clinton: 20%

3.  Some younger voters enjoy feeling superior by rejecting 'compromise'.  "Only wimps vote establishment."  Especially when a voter only remembers seven years of lefty compromise, the frustration with such a slow pace outweighs any downside from the potential loss to a rightist candidate.   Clinton: 20%

4.  To commit, marginal voters need excitement.  Though most polls screen out registered voters who aren't likely to vote, in a race with one candidate of mixed popularity, and another who's all but toxic, third party allegiance is a logical 'escape hatch'--a place to park a vote that never quite gets cast.   This is why 3rd party polling is invariably so disappointing relative to the eventual outcome (if a 3rd party candidate at 4% in the polls they're likely to get 1% or less).  Trump: 40%   Clinton: 15%

5.  Many young voters have key issues that rule out both candidates.  For example, a vehement believer in never-abortion can't vote for Clinton.  But, Trump's boorish, profane, bullying campaign has given the hesitant voter many 'no-go' turn-offs: sexism being the most obvious barrier.   Again, with the parking of votes that will never be cast, or, especially for Republicans, voting for the other party.  Trump: 60%   Clinton: 15%

My own vote history as a 20-something was that I was too young to vote in '72, but campaigned anyway (for McGovern over Nixon), then voted in '76 (for Carter over Ford), 'parked' my vote for the 3rd party candidate, John Anderson, early on in '80, but ended up not voting (Carter-Reagan-Anderson).  Finally, I voted for Mondale over Reagan in '84

*** Actually, since I first started writing this in late September, Hillary has advocated: 1. a significant scaling back of the planned upgrade of our nuclear arsenal; and 2: a stiffening of anti-trust law and enforcement.  Both indicate a progressive candidate, rather than a closet corporatist, since both positions would shut down corporate profit in an extraordinary way.  In the first instance, this position was exposed in a WikiLeaks secret tape recording, which means it's not what she intended for people to hear--likely because it's a vote loser prior to the election (especially in areas with big defense contractor workforces, like Virginia).  The plan, likely, had been to whip out such a radical re-thinking during budget negotiations with Republicans, as the enormous cost savings would go a long way to paying for various other priorities--both Republican and Democratic.