November 02, 2008	Sunday	Ziqa'ad 3, 1429

NEW YORK, Nov 1: With only 48 hours to vote in the American elections many polls say that the race is too tight to call but one poll predicts that if the younger voters exercise their right to vote Democratic nominee Barack Obama would win in a landslide.

But the pollsters observed that if voters in the 18-30 age group do not care about voting as much as their elders then Republican John McCain, who promises to stay in Iraq for 100 years if needed ,would win.

The Gallup Organisation, which has been tracking voter behaviour for more than half a century, reported last week that registration, interest in the election and likelihood of voting remains measurably lower among 18-to 29-year-olds than among those older than 30. The under 30 “share of the likely voting electorate ... appears as if it will be similar to what it has been in past elections”, Gallup’s pollsters said.

Even in 2004, when interest in the election spiked among young people, only 49 per cent of eligible voters younger than 30 went to the polls. That compared with 68 per cent among those older than 30.

Activists pushing voter participation by young people argue this year is different. Rock the Vote says it has polling that indicates 87 per cent of young people are planning to vote this year. Gallup’s polling, by contrast, found only 78 per cent of those younger than 30 said they were even registered. In Michigan, where an estimated 98 per cent of the voting age population is registered, the youth number is likely higher.

A New York-based political consultant says he is convinced that 2008 will be a banner year for young people in politics and, more importantly, a transformational year as well one in which a generation of committed partisan Democrats is forged.

“I think things have changed dramatically from four years ago and eight years ago. This may not be 1972, but it looks like it will be close,” he said.

The year 1972 was the watermark for young voters – 55 per cent turnout. It was the first presidential election for 18-year-olds; the Vietnam-era draft was still on, though abating, and the Democratic candidate ran as antiwar and pro-kid or at least those who were antiwar.

The problem for Democrats is that their candidate in 1972, George McGovern, got defeated. That’s why the Obama analogy usually shifts at some point from McGovern to earlier generational figures, like John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Still, there’s no question the Obama campaign appears to be getting it done on campus says one poll here.

But despite a measure of confidence in Democrats, the bitter losses of election 2000 and 2004 still reverberate, and a sense that this election could also be cheated away gives nightmares to many supporters.

“Look, I have this sense of impending doom; we’ve had a couple of elections stolen already,” one Obama supporter said in a interview with a local newspaper . “The only thing worse than losing is to think that you’re going to win and then lose.” He considers that prospect and mutters, almost involuntarily, “Oh, God”.

Right now, more than a few are having a these-polls-are-too-good-to-be-true, we-still-could-lose-this-election moment. Their consuming and possibly over-confident worry is that their prayers and nightly phone calls to undecided voters in Toledo, Ohio, notwithstanding, Mr Obama might fall short on Election Day.

Certainly, national and swing state polls suggest that Democrats might allow themselves a deep breath or two, the New York Times noted. But liberals are not inclined to relax, given the circumstances of their last two defeats.

The prospect of success now comes scented with dread.

And in Ohio, evangelical radio stations feature pastors praying for God to help voters ignore these “awful” polls and vote his will.