Growing up or Growing Apart?

by Meg Storm

In 2008, Barack Obama commanded two thirds of the youth vote. He beat Republican challenger John McCain by a whopping 34-point margin, 66 percent to 32 percent, in the 18 to 29-year-old demographic. There is no other way to slice it: it was a complete butt kicking by the calm and cool guy, who campaigned on euphemisms like hope and change and knew how to use Twitter. Wearing an Obama-Biden button on your backpack, permanently scarring your car with a bumper sticker, or volunteering for his campaign on the weekends seemed trendy, savvy, and popular.

It would be easy to look at the polls today, which show President Obama with a very solid lead (recent polls have it at 55-36) among young voters and say that not much has changed. After all, in but three week’s time the President will undoubtedly capture the demographic by double digits. But when you look past the numbers, things start to get more complicated.

President Obama’s lead among young voters is substantial, but his failure to maintain the epic levels of the 2008 election, in part reflects the failures of his policies. Youth unemployment in this country is approximately double the national average, and from April to July the number of people ages 16 to 24 who are unemployed, rose by 2.1 million to 19.5 million people.

These numbers don’t lie, and to the extent that the polling data shows President Obama slipping in the polls when it comes to young voters, one must question: are these voters simply growing up or are they growing apart from the Democratic party and its fearless leader?

The second presidential debate began with a question from coed Jeremy Epstien. Epstien voiced the concerns of so many college students and recent grads when he asked the candidates if they could reassure him and his parents that he will be able to “sufficiently support” himself after graduation. What was President Obama’s response: a three part answer that touched on the value of higher education (something Epstein probably knows seeing as he introduced himself as a COLLEGE STUDENT), the need to be energy independent, and, finally, the importance of creating new manufacturing jobs. Something tells me that is not the kind of “sufficient support” Epstein, and countless others (myself included), were looking for.

We are now talking about a coalition of voters, who are more tentative to accept empty promises that contain words like hope and change from a man who now looks worn and weathered, not shiny and new. Over the past four years these ‘kids’ (some of whom were not eligible to vote in last election) ‘grew up’ as they watched their parents struggle to make ends meet or faced their own uncertainty as the cost of living continued to increase and their job prospects faltered. And what about the actual kids – 12, 13, 14, 15-year-olds – who are very well aware of the fact that mom and dad can’t afford to buy those new Nike sneakers or North Face jacket. What will happen when they are eligible to vote in a few years? Will they favor the out-of-control tax and spending methods of progressives, liberals, and Democrats, or will they favor the smaller and more fiscally responsible government championed by conservatives and Republicans?

As a senior at New York University, I attend a liberal college, in a very liberal city, and an even more liberal state. I have heard countless stories about the good ol’ days of 2008 when the thought process was simply: You’re not voting for Obama? Oh, then you must be voting for Hillary. But the atmosphere around campus today is quite different. My politics classes are filled with policy discussions that frequently result in critiques of the administration’s handling of issues ranging from foreign policy to tax code. Peers in my journalism classes no longer laugh off assertions of media bias, instead, we dissect the worst offenders and look for solutions.

I don’t see these changes as merely ‘growing up’, I see these changes (many which have I have observed particularly over the last year or two) as a sign that the notion of a big government that favors redistribution and overpopulates the discourse with trivial social issues is no longer as attractive as it once seemed. If the jewel of the Democratic Party – President Obama – is having trouble selling these policies to the allegedly lockstep voters of the youth demographic, who can they possibly sell them to?

What I am describing is not a particularly overt change in behavior or one that will have much of an effect on the polls this November, but there is a palpable sense the young people are frustrated, and their saviors at the DNC are no longer providing plausible solutions to very real problems. If this trend continues, which I believe it will, regardless of who wins the election, Democrats may find themselves with a large problem on their hands: the youth vote hasn’t just grown up, they have grown disenfranchised and, dare I say, more conservative.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn Beck discussed the recent news that a primary source for the Steele Dossier — the document on which much of the Trump-Russia collusion investigation was based — had been investigated by the FBI for contacts with suspected Russian spies. Glenn also shared several previously unpublished texts and emails from FBI agents have recently been released.

According to a letter sent by Attorney General William Barr to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, the FBI knew early on that the research compiled by ex-British intelligence agent Christopher Steele relied on a "Primary Sub-source" that had been "the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009 to 2011 that assessed his or her contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers" — but still used it to obtain warrants to spy on former Trump campaign-aide Carter Page.

But, it gets even worse. Now, new leaked texts and communications from FBI agents within the department at the time of the entire Russian collusion effort were disclosed in federal court filings on Thursday. According to the court documents, FBI agents purchased "professional liability insurance" to protect themselves in January 2017, just weeks before Donald Trump was inaugurated president, because they were concerned about the agency's potentially illegal activity during the Russia collusion investigation.

"Trump was right," one FBI employee wrote in response to then-President-elect Trump's Jan 3, 2017 tweet which read: "The 'Intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!"

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Chief researcher Jason Buttrill joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to discuss an "explosive" new report released Wednesday by Senate Republicans on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Among other serious allegations, the 87-page report claims that "Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow," and the richest woman in Russia.

"The transactions discussed [in the report] are designed to illustrate the depth and extent of some questionable financial transactions. Moreover, the financial transactions illustrate serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family," the report stated.

Jason suggested the Senate's findings provide additional evidence to back allegations of a money-laundering scheme, which Glenn detailed in a four-part series about Biden's shady connections to Ukraine. Learn more on this here.

"Laundered money is very hard to track to its finality," Jason explained. "I'm sure the Biden camp is really hoping that it just looks suspicious, but [investigators] don't ever find the eventual end point. But, if they do – and it's possible they already have – this is going to be explosive, very explosive."

Watch the video below for more details:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Revolutions rarely happen overnight. The Left started laying the groundwork for November 3, 2020, the moment Hillary Clinton had to concede the 2016 election to Donald Trump. It was always solely about getting rid of President Trump — and there's a playbook for that.

Last week, Glenn Beck showed you the "Seven Pillars of Color Revolution" written by a former U.S. diplomat, which are the conditions that must be in place for a successful Eastern European-style "Color Revolution." The left seems to be pushing for a Color Revolution this election because they are using the exact same playbook.

In part two of this series, Glenn peels back the layers on the first four of these Color Revolution pillars to show you how they work and what the end goal is. And he reveals one of the architects of the playbook – a Color Revolution specialist, former ambassador, and former Obama administration official who is one of the key masterminds of this revolution.

Joining Glenn is political campaign veteran and BlazeTV host Steve Deace who says the polls that claim Biden is leading the race "are trash." We're being set up to believe that if Trump wins in spite of the polls, it must be an invalid election.

Watch the full video below:


WATCH all of Glenn's Specials on BlazeTV:

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Save $10 with promo code GLENN.

Sen. Ted Cruz: NOBODY should be afraid of Trump's Supreme Court justice pick

Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Wednesday to weigh in on President Donald Trump's potential Supreme Court nominees and talk about his timely new book, "One Vote Away: How a Single Supreme Court Seat Can Change History."

Sen. Cruz argued that, while Congressional Democrats are outraged over President Trump's chance at a third court appointment, no one on either side should be afraid of a Supreme Court justice being appointed if it's done according to the founding documents. That's why it's crucial that the GOP fills the vacant seat with a true constitutionalist.

Watch the video below to hear the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.