Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Gen Z voters could swing key races in November

Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman

Josh Shapiro (center) and Josh Fetterman (right) could see their electoral fates hinge on young voters.

Mark Makela/Getty Images

The youngest voters in swing states are highly motivated to cast ballots this fall, according to a recent poll, and they could prove to be difference-makers in a number of key races.

The Gen Z Swing State Survey, conducted by Generation Labs for the left-leaning Voters of Tomorrow, found that 67 percent of people ages 18-24 in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin said they are “absolutely” or “likely” to vote in November’s midterm elections.

In the previous midterm election, 32 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds voted. In 2020, when more voters than ever cast ballots, 51 percent of that cohort participated.


“Young people are under attack from the far-right on so many different fronts — from abortion restrictions to book bans to gun violence –– and realize that this election could determine what rights we have going forward,” said Jack Lobel, deputy communications director for Voters of Tomorrow.

Each of the surveyed states features competitive House, Senate and gubernatorial races. Democrats in Generation Z are more likely to vote than Republicans (78 percent, compared to 63 percent).

This year, the members of Generation Z in those states say they are primarily concerned abortion rights, with 37 percent saying that issue will influence how they vote. Both jobs/economy and health care were identified by 35 percent (respondents could name three issues.)

Concerns about democracy fell near the bottom of the list: democracy reform/voting rights (11 percent), the Jan. 6, 2021 riot (6 percent), reforming/eliminating the Senate filibuster (5 percent).

“The far-right has given us so many reasons to show up this November. Our mission to protect access to abortion care is just one of them,” Lobel said.

A recent survey by The New York Times found that, among all registered votes nationwide, the economy is considered the most important problem facing the United States (26 percent), followed by inflation/cost of living at 18 percent and abortion running a distant third at 5 percent. Even among those 18-29, abortion remained in third (at 10 percent).

Earlier this year, the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement identified the House, Senate and governor’s races where youth voters can have the most impact.

The Senate races in each of the seven states included in the survey made CIRCLE’s list of 10, including the top five (Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

In terms of gubernatorial races, four of the states made CIRCLE’s 10, including Wisconsin (no. 2) and Arizona (no. 2).

“Young people in Wisconsin, which is in the top-5 of both of our rankings, make up 16% of the state’s population, have a 68% voter registration rate, and have demographic characteristics correlated with high voter turnout,” wrote the researchers for CIRCLE, which is part of Tufts University’s Tisch College.

Lobel identified a handful of candidates who have done a particularly good job of reaching out to young voters, including Democrats Josh Shapiro and John Fetterman, who are running for governor and senator, respectively, in Pennsylvania.

“Young people make up 16% of the state’s population, 69% of youth are registered to vote, and young people had above-average voter turnout in the past two federal elections,” CIRCLE wrote.

Voters of Tomorrow has a particular affinity for a particular Democrat seeking a House seat in Florida.

“It also goes without saying that Maxwell Frost, who will soon become the first Gen Z member of Congress and whom we were proud to endorse early on in his candidacy, is one candidate who appeals to us, not just because he is one of us, but because he will fight for our future,” Lobel said.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less