Last Tuesday, being a Republican in State College was decidedly uncool.

While dozens of supporters of Sen. Barack Obama frolicked around, handing out fliers and "I voted for change" stickers, Sen. John McCain's supporters were almost non-existent. I saw maybe four people with McCain stickers over the course of the whole day.

And the results show in the election results. According to unofficial figures, Obama got more than 60 percent of the vote in all but one State College precinct. When coupled with this year's historically high voter registration and voter turnout, things aren't looking good for conservatives.

It didn't used to be this way.

Check out this quote from a 1984 issue of TIME magazine: "voters ages 18 to 24 said they were backing or leaning toward Reagan over Walter Mondale by the astonishing margin of 45 points, 63 percent to 18 percent -- a lead nearly ten points wider than in any other age bracket."

What happened since then? How have Republicans gone from dominating the youth vote to writing it off?

The problem is epitomized in Sarah Palin. Not her specifically, but the kind of voter appeal she represents.

Now, I think Sarah Palin is a very nice woman. And I don't think she's nearly as stupid as some people have made her out to be.

But based on my discussions over the last four weeks, I have come to one inescapable conclusion: Sarah Palin completely failed at winning the youth vote.

I can count on one hand the number of college students I know that actually like her. I've had debates where people respond to any argument to vote for John McCain with the words "Sarah Palin," as if it were an absolute disqualifier. I know people who were motivated to volunteer for Obama simply because of the presence of Palin on McCain's ticket.

Why was Palin so unsuccessful?

The reason, I think, is that young people want leaders that are different from themselves.

During George W. Bush's two presidential campaigns, many people said they'd rather have a beer with him than with Al Gore or John Kerry.

The theory was that Americans care more about whether they can relate to someone than whether that person was better qualified for the presidency.

Sarah Palin takes this argument to the extreme.

It's a tough sell to argue that Palin was chosen purely based on her qualifications. You could argue that she has "executive experience" and pushed through ethics reform in Alaska. But the heart of Palin's appeal lies in relatability. This was obvious in her rhetoric about hockey moms and Joe Six-pack.

Following this argument, Palin's lack of national and international political experience is almost an asset. Who cares if she didn't get a passport until 2006? The majority of Americans don't have one either.

A lot of conservatives have mocked Obama's almost-messianic appeal, but it illustrates a key difference from Palin. Palin's fundamental appeal is that she is similar to you. Obama's fundamental appeal is that he is different.

And in this election, young voters overwhelmingly chose the candidate who was different.

Reagan didn't have very much in common with youth voters. He was 73 years old, after all.

But he did capture that difference. He was "the great communicator."

He had a transcendent view of America. He said things (such as "tear down this wall") that conventional wisdom was against at the time.

If conservatives can re-capture that idea of difference, they might be able to recapture the youth vote.

But until then, being a Republican on a college campus is going to remain as uncool as ever.

Ryan Pfister is a senior majoring in information sciences and technology and economics and is The Daily Collegian's Monday columnist. His e-mail address is ryan@psu.edu.