I've been meaning to respond to Greg Anrig's post asking how the progressive agenda can be sexed up to appeal to 20-somethings. As a semi-prominent, politically involved 20-something, I run into this a fair amount, and even get TV/article/radio engagements to answer it, which is a pretty sweet deal. Problem is, though, that I routinely disappoint my hosts. You could slap a bikini and breast implants on every education subsidy on earth and the vast majority of 20-somethings wouldn't care (on that note, it's worth remembering Matt's distinction between 20-somethings in age, which encompasses young married families as well as college slackers and thus can't really be seen as a group, and 20-somethings in electoral theory, which mainly means youngish, relatively educated, highly mobile people). This isn't about issues. Hell, even older demographic groups, save maybe seniors, don't vote on issues. The young certainly don't.
The best answer I can give is that your average 20-something, no matter what the media might say, is not that cynical. Moreover, the age group has a real interest in movements, in joining things, in being part of something larger. That works for politics as surely as fashion and ipods. It's surely true that Lance Armstrong wristbands are more prevalent among my peers than yours (assuming you're old and smelly). So inspiring, exciting campaigns tend to do better among the youth. Goldwater, McGovern, Dean...all did better among the young than they did among the general populace. Playing it safe and stable appeals to much of America, but not to very many 20 year olds.