Newt's Southern feat: Has a new day dawned for the Gingrich campaign?

Earlier this week, I declared Thursday the most important day of Newt Gingrich's campaign for the presidency.

At the time, the one-time frontrunner in the GOP race was surging in conservative South Carolina, where a win would propel him back into the top tier - a place he hadn't been for nearly a month.

Helped immensely by two extremely-strong debate performances this week - and an electorate very much in sync with his classic conservative credentials - Gingrich wiped the floor against his Republican counterparts today.

With 90 percent of votes counted, Gingrich carried more than 40% of the vote. Romney manage to win just 27 percent of the vote (Santorum and Paul tallied 17 and 13 percent, respectively).

*Most encouraging for the Gingrich camp should be his relative success at winning young voters.*

Gingrich came in second among young voters, failing to unseat Ron Paul as the favorite candidate of the GOP's next generation. But Gingrich still managed to earn an impressive 27% of young voters - evidence that his discussion of economic woes such as the increase in food stamp usage, homelessness and joblessness is resonating with certain young voters.

The relative success of Gingrich and Santorum (who pulled 22% of the young vote) with young voters in South Carolina highlights another major hurdle in favorite Mitt Romney's path to the presidency: Young people aren't rallying around him (which is perhaps a signal the party's youth base will never truly galvanize around Romney).

Not that Gingrich is the perfect candidate for young voters.

And, questions over whether Gingrich could best candidate to attract moderates and independent voters in the general election still loom. Some GOP strategists have openly speculated that a Gingrich candidacy would hurt Republicans nationwide in congressional and state elections in 2012.

But, at this point, none of that matters. His campaign has persuaded many young people to give him a second look. Gingrich has wisely accepted an invitation with the Rev. Al Sharpton and other black leaders to discuss minority issues. If he can use that meeting to convince them that, while they have clear ideological differences, he's no bigot, it could win him the confidence needed to woo black voters disappointed by the Obama presidency.

As I've outlined previously, embracing minority voters - especially blacks and Hispanics - will be essential to whoever the GOP nominee is - and could propel someone like Gingrich in states like Florida, New York and Pennsylvania.

Looking forward, the former speaker of the House must translate his victory tonight into something more than soundbites - campaign contributions.

The Gingrich campaign's financial difficulties have been well-documented. He's polling well in Florida, but if he's going to stay through the winter and spring, he's got to translate tonight's victory into cold, hard cash.

Alexander: Will this decisive victory in South Carolina provoke a surge for Gingrich? And I'm not talking about in the polls - if this GOP race has proven any, it's been that polling is flawed - I'm talking about in the fundraising necessary to sustain a 50-state campaign.

Paul shakes up the vote...as a third party millennial-centric candidate

Paul needs to answer a decisive question before the media would anoint him the shake-of-the-vote candidate of 2012 (one who is poised to strengthen the nation's democratic process via the inclusion of a viable third-party candidate): If not the Republican nominee, does he promise to proceed onward as a non-GOP candidate?

Even if he doesn't truly want to be president, as many suspect was the case of Ross Perot's candidacy (including his '92 campaign manager Ed Rollins), Paul must demonstrate the sincerity, discipline and fighting spirit of a vigorous campaign.

For one, that means he has to declare that his campaign would continue unfettered if he deems it impossible for him to triumph in the delegate race. Second, he must also establish that he will embrace being a non-Republican-stamped candidate - instead, channeling his power through an independent movement. He would have to also embrace the prospect of being on the ballot as a Libertarian candidate.

There is one factor that could prevent this from becoming reality: Paul's son is a leading Tea Party Republican, and his father's non-GOP insurgency could jeopardize his son's standing within the party.

Right now, to much of the mainstream media, it's far from a guarantee he will choose to unify his support in a third-party effort. As I reported yesterday, his campaign manager is silent about those odds and instead seems to concentrate on impacting GOP party planks come convention time. I believe a third-party Paul candidacy is plausible, but I am also somewhat unconvinced.

Yet, as I asked a skeptic recently: If Paul does not want to, at a minimum, take his convictions to the general election - on stage with Obama and Romney (or Gingrich) - then why is he still in the campaign?  I'm curious how you would respond, Wes? He would probably prove more effective behind the scenes if he actually wanted to overhaul the GOP platform.

We will all soon learn what Ron Paul actually wants, as the Fourth Estate continues to wonder. One thing is apparent: Paul and President Obama will remain strange bedfellows in their capacity to court young voters (Paul with his message, and Obama, at least most recently, with his charm...in this case, a soulful partial rendition of Al Green's "Let's Stay Together" at the Apollo Theatre in NYC.)

Let me raise one more question, too, before S.C. starts counting its ballots. If Gingrich wins today, how can he double down and sweep over young Floridians with his campaign message? Of course, how those over 50 vote may be more decisive in this retirement haven. But it's worth mentioning that, according to one recent academic study, young people are "woefully disengaged" with Sunshine State politics.

Don't expect droves of young voters in South Carolina (or beyond)

Like you, I much preferred last night's debate to previous ones because the exchange delivered each candidate on the stage an adequate opportunity to highlight his distinctions.

But I'd be lying if I said I'm not debate-fatigued. We're nearing 20 GOP debates this cycle and few things have changed. Newt Gingrich still loves belittling the moderators, Mitt Romney still loves playing the role of the frontrunner, Ron Paul still loves lecturing his opponents on econoimcs and Rick Santorum still loves attacking everyone else on stage.

And last night's debate did little to win over young voters.

The issues that matter most to young voters - jobs, education affordability, foreign wars, drug policy - weren't discussed at all.

And, with the exception of Ron Paul, who always boasts support among young voters, the candidates didn't do much to help themselves with Gen Y.

Romney dodged questions about his tax returns, and Newt's insistence that he didn't ask for an "open marriage" came across as disingenuous.

The inability of all the remaining candidates who aren't named Ron Paul, combined with a staunch conservative electorate that plays against the Texas congressman's strengths, will lead to a continued dip in young voter turnout when South Carolina goes to the polls.

Even if Paul continues to capture a substancial chunk of the youth vote (which I believe he will, and as he did in Iowa and New Hampshire), if he fails to secure 20 percent of the vote, then the mainstream media will go back to completely ignoring him.

As we've both written here before, that's a mistake.

Paul's ability to mobilize the young wing of the GOP is vital to the party's long-term viability.

Wall Street Journal economist and editorial board member Stephen Moore articulated this argument brilliantly.

So, Alexander, will the GOP (and the media) finally embrace Paul? If not, what does this mean for youth turnout on the right of the aisle in 2014 and 2016?

Paul appeals to young voters with focus on domestic bread and butter economics

Yesterday's debate was the first equal opportunity one of the GOP primary cycle. By that I mean that each of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates (Romney, Paul, Santorum and Gingrich) essentially shared the microphone. The candidates all spoke roughly the same amount of time and garnered similar decibels of applause.

The CNN forum was full of fireworks, probably the most confrontational, exciting and topically wide-ranging debate thus far and one in which the candidates lost most of their inhibitions.

How does this all fare for the youth vote? You're right, Wes: If young people are going to catapult a non-Romney GOP alternative to frontrunner status, at the current rate, it most likely won't be Newt Gingrich, even if he pulls a victory in S.C. 1) He is too aligned with conventional party politics. 2) He has failed to connect his "big ideas" to college students, specifically. 3) As a former college teacher, he has failed to capture vigorous grassroots support from millennials in the first contests.

But S.C. may soon become a four-way dead heat in the polls. If Gingrich wins the state, surging momentum will not be enough to secure top spot on the ticket. In order to win the nomination, he will have to win over the hearts and minds of GOP youth in a way he has yet to do. Beyond retuning his image as the sometimes erratic, egocentric and cry baby professor estranged from the student body, I'm not sure there's much he could do, at this point, to win over Ron Paul's dedicated twenty-something followers. The same is true of Mitt Romney, who was the victim of audible boos last night...after the crowd appeared fed up with his con artistry (in the eyes of Republicans who believe Romney is a Democrat in Republican's clothes).

Entering the South Carolina primary, I wonder if the youth turnout in the first south-of-the-nation contest will return to '08 levels. That may depend on the extent to which the S.C. primary electorate, particularly young people, believe the field is open and Romney is not the presumed nominee.

For if you are to believe the Paul hype, the 76-year-old will galvanize a record percent of the 18-30 demographic at the polls over the weekend. One S.C. student tells BBC News: "He will save our generation from debt," he says. "He straight up says if we don't cut our debt, cut our bases, bring our troops back, our generation will have no money, we'll end up paying all the debt back."

Wes: Based on the continued media reports of his zealous loyalists and the six reasons, as Forbes reports, young people separate Paul from the pack (gravitating toward his cult-like rebel persona - his promise to abandon foreign entanglements and to instead focus on domestic bread and butter economics instead), why should we not expect a record youth turnout in S.C.? 

(Perhaps the answer is that Paul is unable to truly channel the reform movement as a Republican, and he does not want to launch a third-party insurgent candidacy.) His campaign manager recently suggested to ABC News that if his candidate falls short in the GOP delegate count, he will try to influence the party platform rather than run in another party: "If the campaign comes up short at the convention, Benton [Paul's campaign manager] says the plan is to use all the delegates awarded to Paul as a bargaining chip to force the Republican Party to stick to its limited government platform.")

Newt's day

Before responding to your prompt I've got to take a second to note that the political world exploded today.

Not only did one-time frontrunner (I know, that only narrows it down to EVERY candidate) Rick Perry drop out of the race, but he also endorsed New Gingrich who has been surging in South Carolina.

Much of our previous reporting on South Carolina has focused on Mitt Romney and Ron Paul — but it's worth noting that if Gingrich can squeeze out a win here it would resuscitate his almost-forgotten campaign with a lifeline of new cash and re-energized supporters.

Today is the most important day in Newt's campaign.

He must perform extremely well in tonight's debate - and bank on a poor performance from Romney. In addition, he must address new allegations from his ex-wife that he requested an "open marriage."

You read that correctly. Gingrich must address the accusations. Dodging the questions about this new interview with his ex-wife and attacking the moderator may play well with tonight's debate audience — but it turns off young voters.

To his credit, the former Speaker of the House handled a previous debate question about his numerous infidelities extremely well during an Iowa debate last month.

That answer is the most humble string of words Newt has put together in any response, to any question thus far on the trail.

And you're right, the winner for young voters is the candidate who can avoid coming across as a dirty, self-indulgent politician. For Newt, this has been a major problem because the "great debate" performances that have propelled him to the front of the pack amongst the anti-Romney candidates usually involve him lecturing the audience about how much smarter he is than everyone. Young voters don't like that.

So what do you think? Does a South Carolina win really matter for Newt if he's incapable of toning down his arrogance to appeal to young voters?

Do young people want Bubba (Bill Clinton) + Jerry Maguire?

If you are just arriving at SCOOP2012, a reported conversation between myself and my longtime friend and fellow reporter Wesley Lowery, we wish you a warm welcome! Wes and I recently participated in a New York Times forum on the youth vote, and this venue is, we trust, an animated extension of that discussion.

Wes, you raise a critical question.

How can the Republicans buck the anti-GOP trend among more independent-to-progressive leaning 18-30 year-old voters? Well, they'll have to sell American youth that they're getting a rawer an economic deal under President Obama than they did under President Bush. While jobs have returned gradually in the last few months, youth homeless is up, and so is debt amongst millennials. These are quite pervasive and unhappy realities for most young people, and come the general election, Republicans will have to exploit young people's ongoing economic vulnerability, and make a case they will be a better helping hand.

If they simply assert that the young person continue to be battered by the Obama economy, they may deter these voters away from the polling station, but they certainly won't be winning their votes. As we reported after Santorum picked a fight with New Hampshire college students, the most important question may be will the GOP even put young people in play?

(I got the impression from the reactions of students in attendance that Santorum's intolerance for young people's conviction in equality for gays and lesbians solidified his image as a non-millennial candidate and his poor showing in the maverick "live free or die" state.)



Ron Paul has put young people in play, concentrating on the plight of the American economy and promising to end foreign interventions that don't put America first. Jon Huntsman tried appealing to the center, but it couldn't overpower the GOP establishment. Will Romney remain glued to economic talking points on taxation, deficit reduction and other fiscal issues that do NOT stress solutions for young people's most immediate problems.

You're absolutely right, Wes: President Obama will have to - and it will be a challenge - argue that "change takes time." Young people are most responsive to quick results, and many will understandably ask is "Yes, we did" accurate in response to Obama's 2008 "Yes, we can" slogan. But, as we've reported here, the nation's economic predicament was too entrenched for a one-term fix. Will "We did what we could?" be persuasive enough?

My take: What will resonate for young people from Obama is the same thing youth will search for in a GOP candidate: Concrete plans to take loan-ridden college students out red ink, and a specific agenda to increase social mobility for a generation that witnesses a 99% and a 1% but no thriving middle class.

Wes, here's my question: Isn't the winner in 2012, for young people especially, the candidate who can hone the more convincing, unpretentious and steady message on the economy? In other words, "I feel your pain" combined with "Help me, help you" (i.e. Bill 'Bubba' Clinton + Jerry Maguire).

Obama must argue change takes time

As we've both chronicled — specifically in our pieces in The New York Times Room for Debate forum last week — President Obama has got some work to do to reinvigorate young voters.

Obama stormed into office with the grandeur of a history-changing presidency. He was going to rid the White House of partisan rhetoric while simultaneously solving the economic woes that have plagued the country since 2003.

Clearly he over-promised.

But, despite what his GOP rivals would have you believe, Obama has accomplished much during his first term. Internationally, he's hunted down and killed Osama bin Laden. Domestically, he's passed historic health care reform and overseen a four-year span in which the economy has gotten better - and is continuing to show signs of slow, but sure, improvement.

As you pointed out, it's going to take more than powerful speeches and buzz words to convince young voters not only to support Obama's re-election bid but also to show up at the polls.

In my mind, it's a simple equation.

Obama must specifically evidence the accomplishments he's overseen domestically, and refuse to run from the promises he made to young voters in 2008. He's got to use his well-spoken nature to remind young voters that change takes time, while also reminding them that his re-election is essential to realize that change - which they ensured with his resounding win over John McCain.

But let's get back to the Republicans - there's a GOP debate tomorrow night, after all. Alexander: What do you think Romney, or any other candidate who is ultimately nominated, can preach to young voters to persuade them to abandon Obama next November?

Young people won't let Obama off easy in 2012 campaign for collegiate votes

As we near the eve of the S.C. primary contest, the mainstream media are finally reporting what we first chronicled here at SCOOP2012. Ron Paul could tap the youth vote all the way to the 2012 presidential debate stage. As USA Today reports, a third-party Paul candidacy is sure to complicate the campaign.

The Pew Research Center finds 44% of registered voters would support Obama, 32% would back Mitt Romney and 18% would get behind Paul in a three-way race.

If youthful Paul supporters remain energized and behind Paul (and not persuaded to jump ship to the mainstream Romney), and the online grassroots donations continue to roll in, his Libertarian campaign will remain alive and well.

Over the next month or beyond, Paul may decide not to enter the fray as an independent because he doesn't want to jeopardize the standing of his son, Kentucky senator Rand Paul, in the Republican Party. It is also not clear, as was the case for reform candidate Ross Perot, that he actually wants to be the nation's leader.

But the important point is this: Even if Paul resigns his campaign, at least a fraction of the anti-Romney college-aged faction probably will not be silenced. They may even attempt to draft a similar Paul or Perot model.

Now, back to our policy discussion of higher ed.

Yes, it is a still a lofty aspiration for the modern American university to serve as a cost-free extension of the public school system. In the current economic climate, it is not plausible to imagine a totally free system of higher ed.

This is particularly true of public universities, many of which are still suffering through fiscal wreckage. Many private universities, however, have eliminated socioeconomic status as a potential barrier to graduating from a top-notch school. Most graduate schools, even the well-endowed cream of the crop, still do not offer a loan-free future for students whose scholarship doesn't cover the balance.  Law school tuition has tripled over the last quarter century.

In fact, the overcrowded over-paying graduate scene is so problematic that two prominent Yale professors recently argued that law schools "should pay students to quit law school." Not so inspiring.  But while the graduate disciplines may carry debt for some time, it is more realistic to envision, with the financial backing of school trustees and alumna, college that will not financially handicap Gen Y and the next decade of college grads.

President Obama and the federal government should probably take note of the need-blind priorities of the nation's most prestigious schools of higher and secondary learning, in order to craft a workable plan for the nation's public universities.

If he wants to recapture young people's zeal, I believe the president must articulate a plan, working alongside schools, to make college more affordable beyond the baby steps (like slightly increasing the federal Pell Grant and access to federal loans).

Many college students know that, and aren't going to let Obama "off easy" in 2012. Sure, Obama needs a summer college campus tour to reconnect with young people. But eloquent speeches won't do the trick. This year's visits to campuses must strike a balance of strategic rhetoric and new policy to appeal to young people.

So, here's my question for you, Wes: How does Obama channel the energies of disaffected college youth who expected more than the president has delivered?

For young Libertarians, it's Paul or bust

Libertarian-bent young voters had the perfect alternative to Ron Paul this cycle.

Gary Johnson, a widely-respected former New Mexico governor threw his hat into the race for the GOP nomination and routinely failed to earn more than 1 percent of both state and national polls. He's now decided to run for the Libertarian Party ticket, but I think his inability to rally young voters in the GOP by winning them away from Ron Paul exemplifies the problem with assuming that Paulites will support any candidate who flirts with their ideology.

Much of the appeal of Ron Paul is personal. He's a horribly inarticulate speaker at times, his suits rarely fit and he passes little legislation because he's ideologically consistent. Essentially - he's your sweet old grandfather.

Unlike Paul, other potential Libertarian standard bearers - whether it be Johnson or former- Congressman Bob Barr - have generated very minimal young excitement because, frankly, they come across as politicians who have sense Libertarianism becoming popular and adjusted their stances — not as ideologically consistent carriers of the flag.

But returning to the question you raise, Alexander — a competitive college education will never be free in this country, ever.

Why not? Well, it's simple — the free market.

We live in a government system that says winners and losers are determined by the free market. Some people have money while others do not. If it's not a fundamental right, the government should not be providing it.

Look for example, at the national healthcare mandate — a piece of legislation passed, essentially, to provide healthcare to impoverished Americans and enable those who can't afford healthcare to have coverage. Last I checked, the majority of Americans still overwhelmingly oppose the idea and ALL of the GOP candidates are campaigning on platforms to immediately repeal it.

If, after using all of his political capital on healthcare in his first term (as I argued in my New York Times piece last week), Obama turns around and argues for free college education in his 2012 platform the cries of "socialism" will ring louder than ever and he will have dug his own grave.

In my mind, if President Obama even thinks of uttering the words "free college education system" he will have personally escorted Mitt Romney into the oval office in January 2013.

If we accept that it won't happen this election cycle, I'm interested — Do you think we will ever see a free college education system in the United States?

Young GOP delegates could redefine convention and party agenda

If Romney secures the GOP nomination, I believe young people could fuel a third party Paul candidacy. If the Texas congressman opts out of presidential politics, it is totally conceivable to me that another Libertarian or reform-meld candidate will emerge to champion their cause.

Within the GOP rank-and-file, there will be little interest to engage these Paulites. But some delegates, particularly younger ones with Paul sympathies, can fight for more than a superficial convention speech. If they wage a compelling media campaign, and harness the power of the current spotlight, they could contribute shaping a more libertarian ethos in the national party's platform.

But, for the time being, let me return to the question I initially raised. For the dedicated and qualified current or aspiring college students among us, should a competitive university education be free by the end of this decade? With the proliferation of financial aid at private universities, this is not nearly as far-fetched a scenario as it once was.

If so, why is this not a goal the president should articulate (and build a strategy to achieve) during this presidential campaign, especially if the GOP is mum on the subject?

Young voters turned off by violent campaign rhetoric

Santorum is not alone when it comes to his commitment to keeping higher education unaffordable for young Americans.

Of the five remaining GOP candidates, not one has articulated a plan for cutting the cost of higher learning and solving the greatest problem facing Gen Y — massive student loan debt.

What many of the Republican candidates don't understand is that vitriolic comments they are tossing around about socialism, "lazy" Occupy Wall Street protesters and that the poor lack a work ethic will cost them the youth vote. While the old-money, Generation X Republican voters in South Carolina may pounce on that type of elitist conservative red meat, the more moderate and expanding younger generation can't help but be turned off.

As Politico columnist Roger Simon pointed out today, the soundbites that have played best during the 15 GOP debates have been those involving killing people — Romney saying Osama Bin Laden deserved two bullets in the head, Rick Perry boasting about how many people Texas executed and a crowd crying "let them die" with regard to the uninsured.

It should come as a surprise to no one that young voters find that type of rhetoric disheartening.

That's why a candidate such as Ron Paul — who was nearly booed off the stage multiple times during last night's FOX News debate in South Carolina — is resonating so well with voters under the age of 30.

Here's how Matthew Segal, who works for OurTime.org (a nonpartisan group that promotes political participation among young people) described it to the Associated Press last week:

Ron Paul is bringing unorthodox ideas to the marketplace that don't fit with the conventional pillars of either political party. And because young people today are a uniquely independent-minded generation, he's resonating with them.

My prediction is that Paul finishes 3rd or 4th (at best) in South Carolina, but that he carries at least 30 percent of the young vote. Assuming both that, and that Romney wins (delivering the knockout blow to Gingrich, Perry and Santorum) how can young voters influence the GOP platform if Romney has locked up the nomination?

A world without college tuition

At the outset of this post, I'll raise a question for us to contemplate.

Wesley, as South Carolina prepares to vote, do you think Ron Paul will score a youth trifecta in the first three primary or caucus contests? After decisive wins within the millennial demographic in New Hampshire and Iowa, will S.C.'s southern religious bent youngsters vote Paul? And if he wins, will it be by a similarly substantial margin?

In order to answer that question, we have to consult Paul's campaign rhetoric on religion. It is largely connected to his belief in personal freedom - the right to practice freely - rather than to particular Evangelical precepts.

The candidate who should be leading in S.C., by virtue of his radical and overly religious campaign,  has not pulled away from the remaining slate.

That is Rick Santorum, of course.

But I want to deviate from the political chatter to discuss something the former Pa. senator recently said. He accused President Obama of "elitist snobbery" (and, effectively, being out of touch) for declaring that every young person to go to college (and be "career-ready," in his words.

Now let me preface my analysis of Santorum's comment by first saying: In my reporting on young people, and in my observations about Obama's policy towards millennials, I have been critical. (Read this New York Times op-ed in the panel Wesley and I recently contributed to.)

But Santorum's criticism of Obama is, frankly, the most counter-productive thing for young people could have bore witness to on the campaign trail.

We know that Obama's ongoing remarks are a necessary commentary on the unaffordability of college tuition today. He correctly wants every 18-year-old to view college as a promising future. This is not just a matter of compassion (although that's a crucial extending hand to young people); it's also the American imperative to nurture more engineers and scientists.

Santorum's moralizing is bound only to disaffect more young people. Instead of appeasing the fringe of the right-wing, Santorum could have articulated a plan for reducing the cost of college (even while asserting that academia is not for everyone). But he seems rather intent on keeping higher education inaccessible.

So this is a challenge, now, for the other GOP candidates and President Obama: Can we envision a world - not with fewer college students - but with more determined financially-unstrapped undergraduates than ever before? Can we envisage a world without college tuition?

(Readers, Wes and company: I will elaborate on the viability of cost-free higher learning in my next post.)

Youth must play the PAC game

The most likely thing to get young voters engaged in this election cycle?

A Stephen Colbert candidacy. Seriously.

Think about it: You've got a popular comedian who openly mocks the political system involving himself in an otherwise confusing electoral process. His creation of a Super PAC (and subsequent explanation of the various PAC loopholes in federal election law) was probably the single greatest piece of public service journalism done this year. By mocking the process, Colbert took thousands of disinterested members of Gen Y and explained to them the injustices of the political system they are subject to.

Without that knowledge, it would be impossible to expect young voters to empower themselves.

(And, it's worth noting, that until the perpetually overrated Jon Huntsman dropped out today, Colbert was polling ahead of the former Utah governor in South Carolina.)

It's really a simple equation. A generation too distracted by their own woes (a depressed job market, massive loan debt, unemployed parents) plus a two-party political system prone to hijacking by partisan hacks on both sides of the aisle equals a disillusioned electorate.

But as I outlined earlier, in order to make their voice heard young voters must master the complicated political system and level their influence not only at the ballot box, but also in the wallets of the two major parties. If young voters were to band together - whether it be at a convention or through the creation of a PAC or Super PAC for the sole purposed of lobbying for moderate positions of the issues most crucial to young voters - they could flex their electoral muscle.

You ask what changes need to be made to the system. I'll keep it brief.

Fewer debates (especially during the primary, when young people most likely aren't watching anyway), and more meaningful media coverage.

If we, as media members, expect a young electorate to engage in the political process, it behooves us to stop over-covering the campaign trail (we don't need a dispatch from EVERY speech by EVERY candidate) and need to focus instead on meaningful coverage.

How about long-form interviews with the candidates asking real questions about real policy and how, specifically, they would implement their various plans.

Despite my disdain for much of the election year coverage, the greatest failure during this cycle has been by the candidates. What do you think they could be doing to better reach, relate to and mobilize the young vote?