Youth Vote

Matt Bai's piece in the New York Times Magazine chronicles the emerging tensions between the White House and the Congress as they strategize for the 2010 mid-terms. Within the piece, Bai discusses the generational dynamic at play as the DNC (what is now the Obama-backed OFA) is pushing congressional candidates (against their wills) to make their pitches to voters normally perceived as unreliable.

...The lesson that Plouffe and his operation took away from the dismal 2009 elections is that Obama can act like a matchmaker of sorts, introducing the party’s candidates to new voters and vouching for their intentions, but it’s only going to matter if the candidates themselves embrace the so-called new politics. What that means, practically speaking, is that the White House is urging candidates to divert a fair amount of their time and money — traditionally used for buying TV ads and rallying core constituencies — to courting volunteers and voters who haven’t generally been reliable Democrats.

This is not what members of Congress or their campaign managers are trained to do, and it has created something of a cultural chasm between the White House and the party apparatus. There is a strong generational component here. With some exceptions, Obama’s passion for organizing finds more enthusiasm among candidates closer to the president’s age and newer to politics (candidates like Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado), while older Democrats have a harder time imagining that a bunch of volunteers and a dozen virtual town-hall meetings are going to matter more than labor endorsements and some killer 30-second spots...

[...]

By Democratic Party standards, this is a relatively muted internal disagreement. But it nonetheless points to the emergence of rival schools of thought within the party when it comes to Obama’s importance as a party leader. Some see him as having transformed both the electorate and the nature of campaigning in what could be a lasting and fundamental way, meaning that things are possible now — both in terms of liberal governance and winning elections — that did not seem possible before. Others view 2008 mostly as a cathartic election that had more to do with conditions in the country than with Obama’s peculiar magic, and they don’t think the party should assume that there are millions of new voters out there who can be tapped if you just knock on the right doors. These two worldviews coexist uneasily among the party’s elected officials and candidates, young and old, in every part of the country — sometimes just hours apart.

The congressional camp within the Democratic Party reflects the status quo that continues to claim that new voters -- including young voters -- don't vote and are apathetic. What they refuse to understand is that we are civically active; we do vote when we are genuinely engaged in a conversation about issues through a medium relevant to our lifestyles. These labor endorsements and "killer" television ads are almost as boring as network news these days. Instead, we should be investing in the peer-to-peer voting drives and organizing work that have already increased the youth vote for three straight elections. From Mike Connery's Journalist Cheat Sheet:

Tip #5: If you insist on reporting the same old story that young people vote at a lower rate than the rest of the electorate, then you have an obligation to also inform your readers/viewers/listeners that youth turnout has increased for 3 years straight, and is at its highest level in over a decade. You also have an obligation to note that in 2006 the youth vote swung a number of important federal races, including pushing Democratic candidates Jon Tester, Jim Webb, and Joe Courtney over the top.

Source: Historical voting patterns (pdf), Impact on Races (pdf), Midterm Turnout (pdf).

Tip #6: If you are going to report on low-turnout among young voters, you also have an obligation to note that young people face more barriers to voting than do older voters. We move more frequently, requiring us to re-register sometimes on a yearly basis, on campus we face a lack of voting machines and long lines, and many university towns actively discourage and try to prevent students from voting.

Source: League of Conservation Voters Education Fund

Tip #7: There are simple fixes to the problems outlined in #6 – election day and same-day registration and mail-in voting are two such fixes that can be applied at the state level. These have been proven to bump youth turnout by as much as 14%!!!!! It would be nice if you reported on them occasionally.

Source: CIRCLE

Tip #8: Young voters will participate if they are asked to, particularly by a peer. This is proven. But the system stopped asking long ago by removing resources and manpower away from young voter outreach. Only in recent years have organizations – and a few campaigns – begin to reengage young voters in any serious way. The result is three straight years in which youth turnout increased. In plain terms: young voters are not apathetic. Rather, the system fails to engage them in any meaningful way.

Source: Young Voter Strategies, Voter Mobilization Tactics

Tip #9: Stop reporting on “celebrity activism” as the Rosetta Stone for understanding the youth vote. This is a Boomer and Gen-X construction created for a broadcast TV culture of the 80s and 90s. Today’s young voters are interested in peer-to-peer communication and networked action. From Facebook to on the ground, peer to peer organizing at club, bars, barbershops and apartment canvassing, the most effective, and sustainable developments in youth organizing in the past five years have come from new, grassroots organizations doing peer to peer organizing on the ground or online. Stop reporting on celebrities and start doing the work of talking to and reporting on the activities of these organizations. Good places to start include:

Forward Montana, The Oregon Bus Project, New Era Colorado, Young Democrats of America, and The League of Young Voters.

There are many more, but let’s do this in baby steps. Start with these and we’ll work out way deeper into youth organizing together.

Young voters can be courted; it just takes some courage and genuine effort. The Speaker's office and legislators like Congressman George Miller (D-CA) have been great on youth policy issues, but in purely electoral terms, the Congressional campaign plan outlined above is disappointing. While OFA doesn't have a pristine record with young voters, they apparently get it more than many of the old guard congressmen and congresswomen.

UPDATE: An example of Congress not understanding youth priorities or youth culture today? Ike Skelton, a longtime Democratic congressman, provides one:

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Tuesday that he thought the military should keep its ban on openly gay service members in part because he did not want to open a national discussion about homosexuality. The chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, a conservative Missouri Democrat, said he thought the debate in Congress over the proposed repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might force families to explain homosexuality to their children. “What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” Mr. Skelton asked reporters at a news media breakfast.

As repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" gains momentum in both houses of Congress, Republicans appear to be planning to mount a vigorous defense of the policy. This in spite of a recent CNN poll stating that nearly 8 in 10 Americans favor repeal. (You couldn’t get 8 in 10 Americans to agree that the sun is indeed the center of the universe and the Earth is in fact round).

The arguments in favor of DADT have long been debunked . It serves no purpose except as a remaining vestige of discrimination. Furthermore, if South Africa and Israel allow military service irrespective of sexual orientation…why can’t or shouldn’t the US?

But all of the above isn't really the point of this post. Republicans should heed caution and tread very carefully during this debate. If they follow through with current opposition and vote en masse against repeal, they’ll further alienate young people. Unlike the political debates over healthcare or the stimulus, repeal of DADT strikes what is now a majority of Americans and an overwhelming number of youth as the right thing. Simpley because it's the right thing to do. The policy is seen as discriminatory and unjust. Supporting the status quo on this issue is standing on the wrong side of history, the consequences of such would be damning to the party’s future vitality.

For the next six months the political environment will favor Republicans. Tuesday’s primaries and special election in PA-12, have cast doubt as to the extent Republicans will be able to capitalize on voter frustration. The reality still remains however, that the majorities that Democrats now enjoy in the House and the Senate will be diminished. But over the course of the next 5, 10, 15 years as millennials become an even larger share of the electorate, Republicans current fortunes will change. By 2018 4.5 million more millennials will be able to cast ballots; by 2020 millennials will be nearly 40% of all eligible voters.

Numerous demographic profiles, surveys and studies have allowed the broader public to become familiar with the political and social attitudes of millennials. In fact the point of this blog Future Majority, is to tell the story of millennial politics from the perspective of millennials. I need not repeat what most of you are already very familiar with. You know that young people have progressive/liberal worldviews and favor Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin. Or that this is the most diverse generation in American history, where Hispanics are 19% of everyone aged 18-29. And that young people view discrimination as wrong whether it is in the military, the church or in the workplace.

Today's Republican Party is quixotically living in a different era, circa 1960 or 1980. The voices and ideas animating the right currently – Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Arizona Immigration law – are all disconnected from the values, concerns and aspirations of young people. For whatever its worth, George Bush was serious about immigration reform and courting Hispanic voters. Only a few years later, we were hard pressed to find a serious Republican in a leadership position that could strongly condemn the AZ immigration law that de facto legitimizes racial profiling. And now after voluminous evidence that DADT doesn’t work (we’ve discharged thousands of soldiers with critical skills and competencies) and isn’t fair nor necessary (soldiers are being asked about their sexual orientation), Republicans are still adamantly defending the policy.

It’s idiocy on moral and political grounds.

This is a historical problem for the party as well. Two generations ago, it was African Americans that left the Republican Party for good and haven't looked back. Now the party is dangerously flirting with ceding Hispanics, the LGBT community and broadly speaking youth to Democrats for the forseeable future.

Repealing DADT would represent social progress. It wouldn't signify parity or full equality, but it would mean that society is becoming a bit more just. Those who stand in the way, athwarting such progress will pay dearly at the ballot box in the not so distant future.

Brandon Griefe at U.S. News and World Report wrote a piece yesterday arguing that the Republicans have an opportunity to make amends with young, Millennial voters given the "genuine fear" created by Democratic spending.

With such a large and active base of young supporters it would appear Democrats have their Republican opponents nearing checkmate. But a closer look at the chessboard reveals neither party is in good strategic position to topple the other’s king.

The Republicans’ problem has been their inability to connect with youth and minorities. Only recently have they begun to deemphasize the socially conservative aspects of their platform that have polarized voters since the culture wars of the 1960s. A recent Pew Research poll found that young adults are “clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life and…are much less likely to affiliate with any religious tradition.” These and other social issues are not major concerns of young adults, a fact that is slowly being realized as Republicans seek to broaden their voting base.

But Democrats’ recent legislative priorities show they’ve also done a poor job at setting the board up for success. Enormous debt and deficit spending to fund a variety of new programs has created a dire fiscal future that is creating genuine fear among young adults. Then-Sen. Barack Obama said it best in 2006:

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

The rhetoric of 2006 has not translated into reality come 2010. The failure of leadership now continues under his watch with trillions in new debt obligations. Young adults will not be able to ignore the red ink that fills the nation’s ledger forever. Unless Democrats act quickly to reverse the growth of the government’s deficit they will poison the well of Millennial support that carried them to historic victories in 2008.

Griefe's analysis is faulty and disingenuous for three reasons.

1.) I don't believe I saw anything from Griefe or anyone else about deficit spending when George W. Bush was in the White House. When Bush entered the Oval Office, Bill Clinton handed his administration a surplus. When he left, we were trillions of dollars in debt. Two major tax cuts and two wars did quite a bit of damage:

Obama's stimulus package accounted for only .07/$1.00 of the national debt when he signed it into law. Nearly 90 percent of the debt was created under George W. Bush.

To clean up the mess Bush left, Obama has to spend more.

2.) The message about the national debt does not carry any water with Millennials, especially since they are encountering the worst youth unemployment rate since World War II. Our friend Karlo tackled this conservative talking point last year, aptly comparing someone climbing a hill to one's life-long relationship with government.

Imagine for a moment that you are trying to traverse a hill. The hill represents how much taxes you expect to pay over your lifetime. One end of the hill is the start (the beginning of your life), the top of the hill is middle-age, and the other end of the hill is, well, six-feet-under. At both ends of the hill, you pay relatively little in taxes, and the top of the hill is when you pay the most in taxes. This is what tax-paying looks like throughout the course of one's life. For some generations, traversing this hill was made easier (but not faster), because the government helped invest in the well-being of the tax-payer very early on in life.

This is not the case with Millennials. The rising cost (PDF) of college and beyond has not resulted in a proportionate increase in services or resources. When you place this fact of rising costs into the context of rising college attendance, the effect is magnified. The share of young people that have attended college has increased 21 percentage points from the 1970s to the present (PDF, pg. 5). What's more is the fact young people with post-graduate degrees on are on the rise, too. What all this amounts to is a more difficult (but not slower) journey over the hill. It's almost as if Millennials have to carry a heavy backpack (read: student debt) and still keep pace with everyone else. Now add to that the fact that the end of the hill for Millennials is much farther away than it is for previous generations due to longer life expectancy.

In addition to this, Millennials themselves tell National Journal that they think Obama's spending has been a good thing.

A plurality of Millennials say they believe that the president's agenda will increase rather than diminish opportunities for their generation (41 percent to 27 percent). More respondents say that his policies averted an even worse economic crisis (44 percent) than believe that Obama ran up the national debt without doing much good (36 percent). By 46 percent to 31 percent, they also say that the comprehensive health care reform bill Obama recently signed into law is a good thing for the country. Just one-fourth believe that the country is worse off because of the president's policies; the rest feel that his efforts have significantly improved conditions (16 percent) or are beginning to move the nation in the right direction, even if they haven't yet produced major gains (43 percent).

Given the toxic economy the Bush policies gave Millennials as they have come of age, making the figurative hill even steeper, the government must invest in the youngest generation to ensure they have a chance of getting over the top, and thankfully, it is.

3.) Griefe comically cites a list of GOPers including Rand Paul and Bob McDonnell as smartly handling social issues in order to keep the focus on the fiscal matters at hand.

This is pretty simple.

Rand Paul doesn't think the 1964 Civil Rights Act should have passed.

Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia issues a proclamation for Confederate History Month in the commonwealth, failing to mention trafficking of human beings and the consequential brutal decades of Jim Crow.

I'm not sure whether Griefe had a brain lapse here or what. Griefe is right that if the GOP can't get social issues right, they won't have any shot at Millennials period. Justin Miller at The Atlantic notes this, describing Millennials as the generation least tolerant of racism. The list of Republicans Griefe provides, though, is laughable. Their clumsy navigation of social issues has provided Democrats with several opportunities to beat back any Republican momentum.

The generational theft argument sounds good, but it doesn't play with young people. It plays even less with Millennials when it's shrouded in social issues.

Nice effort. Back to the drawing board.

How does one know when a politician isn't up with the times? I suspect there are a number of devices that get to this metric, but one might be looking for someone harping about the nation being "center-right."

John McCain, of 2008 "Country First" fame, appeared with Sarah Palin yesterday to speak to a crowd of Tea Partiers. While Palin continued to gloss over the constant references to violent acts in her exhortations to teabaggers over the past couple days, McCain railed against health insurance reform, vowing a repeal of the newly-passed law.

When McCain spoke, he responded to President Obama's speech yesterday, in which Obama defied Republicans to campaign on a platform of repealing the health care reform law, in light of the various benefits included within it. "And my attitude is, 'Go for it,'" Obama said.

McCain declared: "We're gonna 'go for it,' an we're gonna repeal this bill. We're gonna stop this spending."

McCain also said: "Our answer is, yes, we're gonna 'go for it,' and we're gonna get it, and we're gonna restore the government back to the people of this country, because this is a right-of-center nation, and this president is governing from the left, and it will not stand."

When I finish reading that, the question that immediately pops into my head is... "What happens if it does stand?" What happens if people like this health insurance reform, given that a majority of Americans had already liked the bill's individual previsions or believed they weren't liberal enough? What happens if the world does not end? More broadly, what happens when the entirety of the nation's most diverse generation ever comes of age and is largely politically active, expressing its left-leaning viewpoints?

I think this all comes back to many members of the GOP and the conservative fringe being unable to zoom out and view these events over the long-term. We saw this with McCain himself in his poorly-run campaign in 2008 -- the difference between tactics and strategy. Yes, Obama faced some trouble with the Rev. Wright controversy, but he gave a forward-looking and eloquent speech that muted much of the criticism. Yes, the McCain campaign was enjoying success in its portrayal of Obama as a celebrity political novice that summer, but because it wasn't rooted in anything, the McCain camp apparently didn't think anything of choosing a mayor with frighteningly little experience as their vice presidential nominee. Yes, health insurance reform has had its troubles, and while the GOP was responsible for many of those Democratic struggles, their refusal to do anything other than saying no left them without any input whatsoever. And now, there's this call for repeal, a move to take away all the benefits given to 32 million people. A conscious choice to choose the student loan industry over young Americans.

As the GOP leans more to the right, its rhetoric closer and closer to a boiling point, it will increasingly place itself in untenable political positions. The GOP chooses to live in the moment, ignoring the political realities around the corner. Contrary to John McCain's wishes/statements, this is no longer a center-right nation. As the Millennials come of age politically, their size and pro-government/socially liberal positions will tip the country to the left, a la the 1930s.

So, again John -- what happens if it does stand? What's the contingency plan?

In what is some bad news for the Democratic candidates in November's midterm elections, young people simply aren't that excited to vote.

According to Gallup daily tracking poll data from March 1 - March 7, 18-29 year olds were the age group with the highest lack of enthusiasm toward voting, with 44 percent of respondents noting that they were "not enthusiastic" about voting in 2010.

One potential problem for Democrats is the lower enthusiasm about voting among young Americans. Twenty percent of registered voters aged 18 to 29 say they are very enthusiastic about voting this November. That compares with 31% to 39% of older age groups who are very enthusiastic.

Younger Americans are decidedly more Democratic than the national average. Thus, their apparent lack of motivation to vote -- if it continues until Election Day -- could deprive Democrats of the full benefit they could in theory derive if all 18- to 29-year-olds were to vote.

Democrats need to knock this number down quickly if they want to have anything resembling success this November. One way of doing that would be to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation. Young people want to see their politics made up of officeholders who are strong, problem-solving leaders, instead of weak, timid politicians.

While David Plouffe and Barack Obama drew praise with his outside-the-box approach in the 2008 election, including the amazing mobilization of thousands of new young voters, 2010 will be a different story for Democrats across the country unless something significantly changes. While it is only March, this is still very disappointing.

UPDATE: From Political Wire:

A new Harvard Institute of Politics poll of 18 to 29 year-olds finds young Republicans are showing more enthusiasm than young Democrats for participating in the upcoming midterm elections with 41% of Republicans planning on voting, compared to 35% of Democrats and 13% of Independents.

This week Chris Bowers over at Open Left predicts that the voters upon which Barack Obama depended in 2008, a large bloc being young voters, will fail to turn out this November. Bowers grounds his argument in what he calls "long-term civic trends" that show "drop-off voters" participating in presidential elections and failing to go to the polls just two years later. Bowers contends that the importance of young voters to Obama's coalition will exacerbate this situation come Election Day, as youth consistently form a smaller share of the vote in midterm elections compared to presidential elections (for information on "share" versus "turnout," please read the first bullet point here). Thus, Bowers calls for a strategy of persuasion as opposed to mobilization.

I disagree with Bowers. In covering youth political participation, one quickly identifies the chicken-egg nature of the topic. Politicians and parties believe youth cannot and will not be politically engaged, so many of the ads, phone calls, and messages are tailored to older voters, alienating the youth demographic. When youth do not turn out after politicians largely ignore them, the media, pundits, parties, and candidates express disappointment in young voters for failing to engage. Thus, youth naturally view electoral politics with cynicism.

In unquestionably consuming the line that youth won't turn out without unearthing why this might be, we perpetuate the cycle. In a tough political environment thus far, with 435 House races this November and over 30 Senate campaigns, it's going to be easy this cycle for timid and weak Democratic incumbents and their consultants to stick their fingers in their mouths, hold them out in front of them, and avoid making tough decisions. And with the GOP disgusting young voters, Republicans have little incentive to target youth. Accepting this as inevitability is what gets us to this situation in the first place, because it doesn't shine the light on the ineffectiveness of this stale strategy. The result is an electorate that's older, more moralistic, and polarized. Boomer-like ideological strength is at the heart of midterms, not Millennial problem solving. Thus, I heartily disagree with Bowers' resigned argument because it reflects the hegemony that silences youth and leads to more of the same in our political dialogue, which we can no longer afford.

Perhaps if candidates were to truly engage youth in medium (use up-to-date technological communication) and message (a strong, progressive discussion of the economy, higher education, climate crisis, and national service framed in a problem-solving approach) and possess a strong record of consistent conviction, they might respond. Furthermore, youth suffer from a lack of access, not apathy. When young people are registered to vote, they turn out. For example, according to the US Census, 81.6% of all registered young voters actually cast a ballot in 2004. That is on par with other portions of electorate.

It's not going to be easy. It's harder to register/inspire a younger group of people to vote when they are collectively facing over 500 decisions without a headlining candidate/campaign at the top. But it won't be as hard if we're willing to challenge our candidates' conventional campaign strategies.

Bowers is right on one thing -- young voters do form the heart of Obama's base. Unlike Bowers, though, I argue that 2010 is so important, our issues are so pressing, and our demographic is so critical to Democratic success that there's no choice but to view this as a mobilization struggle. Political interest is at an all-time high among youth; to capitalize, we must recalibrate our campaigns to attract the support of young people.

The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and Lessons of Barack Obama's Historic Victory

Those of us in the progressive youth movement have been talking about the importance of young voter outreach for a long time now. We tried to drive home the point that young voters are not apathetic, but disengaged due to that self-fulfilling prophecy of traditional campaign 'wisdom.' Youth political organizations kept succeeding, increasing youth turnout in 2004 and 2006. David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and Barack Obama eschewed tradition by deciding from the beginning that organizing young voters to expand the electorate would be the key to victory.

"One of [Paul] Tewes's ideas was to make sure we were working every community, no matter how small. African American, Latino, high school kids, Republicans--we had staff assigned to all of the demographics, months ahead of our competition." The Obama campaign began by working hard to turn out the potential voters that traditional campaigns write off. While critics of the youth vote claim that 2008 was a fluke and just about Obama, it is clear that the campaign worked hard to organize youth that had never been asked for their vote by a campaign. The campaign knew that they "would win Iowa only on the backs of independents, Republicans, young voters, and new registrants--a scary proposition, to say the least."

The campaign was able to look at the election through the lens of a young voter. "At least 95 percent of our six thousand employees were under the age of thirty, most under the age of twenty-five." While it is not uncommon for a lot of campaign staff to be young, what was exceptional about the Obama campaign was the respect for them and the willingness to trust their instincts on what was happening on the ground.

We adjusted accordingly, adding more media and Internet advertising geared exclusively to younger voters; we prepared to do a lot more instructional and informative work with our supporters so they knew how to caucus, while trying not to spook them; and we redoubled our efforts to attract support from conventional caucus Democrats so our newbies in certain precincts were matched with some grizzled veterans.

The campaign invested in "advertising specifically geared toward women, seniors, and younger voters, African Americans and Latinos." The messaging of the youth advertising reflected an understanding of the generation: "spots for those under thirty were very aspirational, a call to action, focusing on issues like Iraq and the environment, and calling on younger voters to get involved in shaping the future." Young voters, used to being ignored, were finally being engaged by a campaign with the same effort and respect showed to seniors.

The Obama campaign conceived of and executed a strategy to expand the electorate by registering and turning out young voters and other traditionally underrepresented demographics. Here are a few passages from The Audacity to Win on how this strategy became a winning one:

As the returns came in we could see the traces of our strategy's design: by registering over one hundred thousand new voters, producing strong turnout among African Americans and young voters, and winning college-educated whites thanks to our stand against the gas tax, we had made ourselves unbeatable in North Carolina.

We registered many thousands of new voters in both states, and these voters participated at high rates, defying the conventional view that new registrants turn out in very low numbers. A strong showing from African Americans and younger voters might put both these states in play in the general election.

If we did not register enough African Americans and young voters in North Carolina and then turn them out on Election Day, we could not win. Facing a traditional electorate meant we shouldn't even bother with a state like North Carolina, no matter how much money we spent.

By focusing their attention on young voters and actually spending resources on research, the campaign learned new things about new and young voters. An example was when their numbers showed that they were not meeting their initial goals for youth early voting:

First, many young voters were so excited by this election that they couldn't envision doing anything besides voting for Barack Obama in person at the polling location. When we raised with them the possibility of long lines, or the potential to free themselves up to volunteer, they simply wouldn't budge. This was a big moment for them and they felt it would seem bigger if they voted at the polls. In any case, they were still dead-set on participating, which relieved us.

The second lesson was that there was still some confusion about who was eligible to vote early and how it worked. Armed with these findings, we made sure our communications to younger voters included even more remedial information about the nuts and bolts of early voting. Soon enough, their numbers began to climb. In many states we lowered our expectations for the under-twenty-five early vote (but not for overall turnout), and we eventually hit those numbers in most battlegrounds.

Republicans have spent a lot of effort in previous campaigns spreading misinformation to young voters about such things as early voting, residency, and registration. By putting in the effort to combat that misinformation, the campaign was able to empower and turn out voters who were unsure of the sometimes complex election laws.

As we now know, this strategy of reaching out to young voters paid off, despite the naysayers from the media and the old school political establishment:

Our base--African Americans, sporadic-voting Democrats, and younger voters--was turning out in larger numbers than McCain's base in most states.

The share of the electorate over sixty-five actually dropped between 2004 and 2008, not because fewer older voters turned out but because younger ones showed up in droves.

Because the Obama campaign was committed to putting effort and resources in registering and turning out young voters, treating them with the same respect as other demographics, they were able to build on the work done by youth organizations since 2000 to culminate with those voters carrying Obama to victory and the presidency. However, culminate may not be the appropriate word. The work in further expanding the electorate by turning out young voters to elect Democrats is far from over. There is more potential for the Millennial generation to not only expand the electorate in an election, but to fundamentally alter the country for the better.

I'll leave you with David Plouffe's words on our generation:

I left the campaign extraordinarily confident about the future of the country, because of the talent and drive of the young men and women who made our victory possible. Certainly, we would not have won the primary or the general without a surging youth turnout in any number of states, Iowa most importantly. But their impact on the election goes beyond casting ballots. Most of our staff was under thirty, many of them were under twenty-five, as were a sizable chunk of our most active volunteers. As I witnessed, sometimes in awe, their performance and desire to look beyond themselves and contribute to a better world (and they have a distinctly global outlook) it gave me extreme comfort to know that in the not so distant future they will be taking the reins and leading our companies, campaigns, and institutions. For my generation, the rocking chair beckons--these kids are that good. I can't wait to experience their leadership and vision in the years to come.

Ballot boxes all over the country felt pretty lonely on Tuesday.
Sure, they had election workers tending to them and making sure ballots were fully stocked. And, of course, older voters predictably made their way to the polls. But young people were largely missing on Tuesday.

In Iowa City and in several key elections all across the country, the youth turnout was abysmal.

One year ago, youth — those aged 18-29 — fueled the election of the nation’s first black president.

Beginning with the Iowa caucuses, young people not only voted in greater numbers, they volunteered, took off school to work on the campaign, and donated money.

Before 2008, how many candidates created Facebook pages or sent out important political information via text message? Now every candidate running for political office — whether for governor or dogcatcher — has a Facebook page, a website, and would love to get your cell-phone number. In 2008, youth were an absolutely critical component, a major piece to the puzzle in the election of Barack Obama.
Young people transformed politics.

One year later, we have to ask ourselves, “What happened?” It’s not only Iowa City student precincts that performed poorly. Youth turnout barely registered in New Jersey and student-saturated Virginia. There are some locally and nationally who will look at Tuesday’s results and argue that students are simply apathetic. To them, 2008 was an aberration — no Obama to vote for, no youth turnout.

It’s easy to make such an argument, but it’s too simplistic and not entirely correct. Yes, too many students are apathetic. Many are uninterested and disengaged from politics. Youth turnout since 2004 has been increasing and in 2009 there were several young candidates elected to local office.

The truth is that in many instances young people are engaged. Yet, it’s also true that youth are too often are completely absent when they don’t feel a direct connection to an issue. And it’s true that in elections that don’t spike a high level of interest and excitement, young people sometimes don’t bother to vote.

While Iowa City’s City Council elections are nonpartisan, a lack of youth turnout contributed to Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey. Democrats are increasingly reliant on young voters and youth turnout. Not only did Obama win the youth vote by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, youth made up a greater share of the overall electorate in 2008. When young people don’t vote, it’s more difficult for Democrats to win.

According to available exit poll data, 18-29 year olds were only 10 percent of all voters in Virginia’s gubernatorial race. In 2008, youth made up 21 percent of the electorate. In 2008, Obama received 60 percent of the youth vote in Virginia and became the first Democrat to carry Virginia since 1964. In 2009, the Democratic candidate, Creigh Deeds, received 44 percent of the youth vote. Deeds actually lost voters under 30 to the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell.

While Deeds was far from perfect, his campaign never made young voters a priority. The result: anemic youth turnout in Virginia and a defeat. You don’t have to act like Obama, talk like him, or even look like him to inspire young voters. You do, however, have to talk to youth, ask youth for their votes, and give them a reason to vote for you.

There’s no excuse for the lack of student turnout in Tuesday’s City Council election. With two students on the ballot, student turnout should have been greater.

But let’s be careful not to give up on young voters in 2010.
For Democratic candidates, youth turnout will be critical to their success. And candidates running in 2010 who want youth to turn out have to go out and make a compelling case for them to do so.

This article originally appeared in The Daily Iowan on November 5th. The Daily Iowan is the student newspaper at the University of Iowa. The author Simeon Talley is a columnist for the paper.

Rachel Hoff of the Weekly Standard posted a gloating piece and was tweeting up a story about her new belief that young voters are now Republicans after the Virginia elections.

"The young people who were the driving force of the Obama campaign stayed home in 2009. Claims that President Obama won a generation of young Americans to the Democratic Party were vastly exaggerated. The power of Obamamania, it seems, was personality politics -- not an actual commitment to the Democratic Party or principles.

Perhaps more amazing and disappointingly under-reported by the media is the fact that 18-29 year olds in Virginia voted for Bob McDonnell over the Democrat 54% to 44%. McDonnell proved that a dynamic candidate with the right ideas, an active youth outreach program, and strategic use of new media technologies, Republican candidates can win the youth vote."

Similarly, Charlie Cook's analysis of Tuesday's election included the following assumption:

"We knew that the young and minority voters who had never cast a ballot before they did for Barack Obama last year were very unlikely to show up at the polls this year or next."

First, while Rachel is right to congratulate McDonnell for his campaign's youth outreach, I hardly think it has anything to do with young voters having gone to the GOP.

Young people prefer progressive ideas, they reject the traditional party structure and tend to identify as more independent. They have much more progressive values. McDonnell's campaign focused on things like infrastructure, energy, and education. He did youth outreach. I don't know if Deeds did, but the consistent narrative around the Deeds campaign was that he wasn't really for anything. The additional narrative I hear is that VA isn't that Democratic.

This doesn't mean young voters have gone GOP, it means that when you put forth the effort to get young voters, you speak to their issues, and you get out the vote you get a good result. Further, when you don't have a strong Democrat at the top of the ticket but you have a strong Republican at the top of the ticket those young Republicans or those young conservative voters turn out. From the numbers I've seen the students at Liberty University could have turned out and made the margin of victory for McDonnell.

To respond to Mr. Cook, I completely understand the misunderstanding. I will say that most of the smartest political operatives know nothing about young voters, its unique to find people who understand how the youth vote works. I know all of the experts and Mr. Cook isn't one of them.

From what I understand about the turnout from the Virginia Election specifically compared to 2009 there was 1/3 of the turnout in 09 compared to 08. Is Mr. Cook really going to say that 2/3 of the Virginia electorate in 2008 was young and minority voters? Really? Come on... In the off season you see a drop off, its normal. When you don't have an inspiring candidate you get an uninspiring result. Sorry Deeds... no offense.

What we saw in 2006 was an uptick in the youth turnout when compared to other midterms. 2004 saw an increase and 2008 even larger than that. If the DCCC and the DSCC wants to see an increase in youth turnout consistent with 2006 they have to work for it. 2006 was a great year that had a consistent message with a Congressional plan that included the needs of the Millennial Generation within its top 10 bills they intended to pass when Democrats won back Congress. If Democrats can continue the same inspiration, provide a reasonable plan for legislation that youth want to see, and do the proper outreach to young people through campaigns you'll get a good turnout.

As Kevin posted Wednesday, amid all of the GOP wins in VA and NJ there were some pretty powerful successes in young elected officials at the municipal level across the country, and some progressive ordinances.

The moral of the story continues to be that young voters will turn out if they are graced with the same outreach as older voters. That is, if you want them to turn out. Progressive candidates can win if they work to engage young voters in their district that connect to progressive issues. As a partisan hack my advice to the other side is to be more conservative and embrace the teabaggers.

In the work that we do as part of the progressive youth movement, vote drives aimed toward young people can easily take on a message like "vote for voting's sake." The result? A media and society that just assume youth are going to vote regardless of what is going on around them. It's a convenient dualism for the establishment: if youth don't vote, call them disengaged; if they do vote, it's due to either a hotshot candidate, issues on the line directly impacting their lives, or because they're supposed to since everyone else is doing it. This is ignorant, though, and just as the world is much more complex than most two-way issues, the same goes with youth voting.

Let's now look at one of the two approaching gubernatorial elections.
New Jersey's race has been topsy-turvy. Incumbent Democratic governor Jon Corzine, hamstrung with a rough economic environment and voters increasingly unhappy with their state's corrupt reputation, trailed Republlican candidate Chris Christie from the start, though he has pulled even as of late given Christie's own problems.

Where do young voters come in? Let's use the New Jersey race as an example.

The New York Times published an article today titled, "Corzine Courts Obama Backers in All-Out Push." And yes, within the "Obama backers," the Times paints young voters as being the heart and soul of the group; it's great if they come through. But what if they don't?

We might be able to see a preview in the article. Check out this academic's view:

“If Corzine can activate the Obama surge vote in New Jersey, that would suggest that last year was more than just a flash, that it has staying power,” said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University. “It will show that Obama’s support was about more than just one candidate’s charismatic personality, and give him a chance to transform American politics.”

Did you get that? Only if young voters show up in New Jersey does "Yes We Can" mean anything. As if 2004 and 2006 didn't happen?? Perhaps, just maybe, Lichtman is missing something.

The article goes on:

The first-time voters are described by campaign operatives from both parties as more likely to be African-American, Latino and urban than the overall electorate. But the group also includes younger voters, so in addition to canvassing in places like Newark and Camden, Mr. Corzine’s campaign has obtained some voter data and contact information from Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site, and is trying to reach them through online appeals and social networking.

“In 2005, Jon Corzine didn’t even have a Facebook page,” said Joseph Cryan, the state Democratic chairman. “But now, with the help of the president’s voter lists, we’ve got people following us on Twitter, and we are reaching out to them in ways we hadn’t ever done before.”

With turnout unlikely to exceed 2.5 million on Tuesday, Corzine officials estimate that if they draw only a quarter of first-time Obama voters to the polls, they could gain the edge they need.

But even the governor’s most ardent supporters acknowledge that selling Mr. Corzine to Obama admirers has not been easy. On the surface, it would be hard to imagine two political figures more different. Mr. Obama is charismatic, eloquent and stylish, while Mr. Corzine is self-effacing, and an often meandering public speaker. And more significant, Mr. Corzine bears the burden of the state’s gloomy economy and reputation for corruption.

News flash to the Corzine campaign: for as much as the Millennial generation likes to be online, likes to post pictures wearing scandalous Halloween costumes on Facebook, likes to watch funny videos on YouTube, and likes to organize political events and/or service projects, we need to be talked to in order to get our vote.

Yes, Barack Obama's organization did a great job in the campaign at connecting with us on social networks like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and a host of others. But he also talked about our issues, and his team made sure we were seeing friendly faces in addition to friend requests and emails. His style matched ours, and the issues he discussed resonated with us. Yes, he asked us to vote for him, but he also asked us to give something back, to get involved, and reminded us that there's got to be a place at the table for us if this country is to take steps forward in the 21st Century.

But Corzine's campaign is willing to settle for a certain number of youth (not suggesting that Obama's camp didn't have their targets in 2008, but they respected us enough to avoid coming out and saying it). This sends a perception that the youth are just the bloc the governor needs to retain power, nothing more. Why? Because if the governor was actually interested in what the youth of New Jersey had to offer, or what they might want to see in his platform or next term, he wouldn't be clinging to Obama.

Yes, it's important to have a Democratic governor in New Jersey, but it's also important for campaigns to understand that youth don't vote to vote. They do so because they're asked for something beyond the vote. The vote isn't a literal, routine act. It's pregnant with significance. It signifies that we see a piece of ourselves in the candidate, that we believe that person will make decisions with our best interests in mind. Part of that is accomplished when people our age support and defend the candidate to us.

You can't buy that. You can't get that feeling from young voters unless you try. And you don't try by spamming their Facebook accounts a week or so before Election Day.

So let's turn to this: say the youth, because the Corzine folks rarely engaged us, don't turn out and the media lambastes them for only voting for personality (codeword for Obama). What is our plan? How do we respond?

Unfortunately, given the lack of funding for many progressive youth organizations, the communications efforts aren't there. By no means am I an expert in progressive youth infrastructure, but I do want to raise awareness of this. Because I have a feeling that the Corzine campaign's inability to engage youth on a peer-to-peer level is going to have some rough consequences, I believe we're going to be facing the "youth are disengaged" meme that will affect our preparations for 2010 and 2012. What are we going to do?