Youth Vote

Originally posted at The Nation.

A few weeks ago, the Obama campaign caused a stir when it suggested that major progressive donors should abstain from supporting independent organizations outside of the campaign working to influence the election. The implication at the time was that Obama was talking solely about 527 independent media organizations (progressive equivalents of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth), but if taken to its logical conclusion, these statements could apply to any number of electorally engaged organizations, including youth institutions that do partisan voter registration and GOTV. This makes me nervous.

In talking with youth organizers, my sense is that there is already far less money on the table for partisan youth GOTV work this cycle than there was at this time in 2004. Obama's phenomenal track record in turning out young voters is one of the dominant media narratives this cycle and I'm worried that donors will take Obama at his word and leave the youth vote work to the campaign. That would be a mistake and I want to lay out a few reasons why that is so:

• Youth Orgs Are Complementary and Boost Turnout Even Higher: Young voters made up the highest share of the electorate in the two states where the campaigns were joined in their GOTV efforts by a strong, independent youth-focused effort. In Iowa, youth were 22% of the electorate, outperforming their share of eligible voters and comprising a higher portion of the electorate than the so-called reliable seniors. In New Hampshire, youth were 18% of the electorate - the second highest share for youth during the primary process, and 43% of all young voters turned out, far and away the highest level of actual turnout among 18 - 29 year olds. In both of these states independent youth organizations like Rock the Vote, the Young Democrats and the Young Voter PAC worked to turnout young voters. Few thought that the primary season would extend beyond these states and most organizations lacked resources or time to organize efficiently elsewhere. That lack of resources was evident in the youth turnout and share of the electorate, which were lower in the other 48 states.
• Obama Needs Help Reaching Non-College Youth: Obama has had great success in exciting the youth vote, but primarily these were college-educated young voters. According to CIRCLE, only 1 in 14 non-college youth voted in a primary or caucus this cycle, compared to 1 in 4 college-educated youth. Organizations like the Young Democrats, The League, and others focus most of their energies off college campuses and in the communities. It is here, in turning out these hard to reach youth, that they can contribute most to Obama's candidacy.
• Youth Organizations Will Increase Turnout for Down-Ballot Races: Presidential cycles are great because they drum up a lot of excitement, but they also tend to induce myopia among the electorate. The latest youth poll from Democracy corps indicates that Sen. Obama is dominating Senator McCain among young voters, but will those young people vote on down ballot races? Or, lacking information on the candidates, will they decline to vote? Will the Obama campaign, with its shiny new 50-state strategy campaign on behalf of down ballot candidates? Maybe, but we don't really know for sure and we dont' know to what extent. As we saw in 2006, supporting partisan youth organizations outside the campaign will ensure that young voters don't just turnout to elect a president, but turnout to elect a whole new wave of Democrats at all levels of government.
• Youth Organizations Do Not Disappear After Election Day: On a similar note, many activists and political operatives are starting to notice that Barack Obama is now in possession of one of the largest lists in progressive politics. It is highly likely he also has the largest youth list in progressive politics. He is marshaling the support of these new political activists to great effect on behalf of his campaign, but will their engagement continue beyond the election? Will the Obama campaign morph into a new, critical piece of progressive infrastructure as Dean for America did when it became Democracy for America? Or will it dissipate like the many campaigns of Ralph Nader or the campaign of John Kerry? What will that mean for the youth vote during the 2010 midterms? Thanks to the work of over a dozen new youth institutions, young voters are trending increasingly Democratic and an infrastructure exists to ensure they stay that way for decades to come. It would be the worst kind of short-term thinking to deprive that infrastructure of vital resources at a time when youth interest is higher than it has been in decades. We should be helping our nascent youth infrastructure capitalize on that excitement, not using it as an excuse to invest resources elsewhere.
• Don't Repeat the Mistakes of the Republicans: There is a precedent for all of this. The Republicans conducted aggressive youth vote outreach in the 1980s and it paid dividends. Young voters routinely chose the GOP candidate (Reagan, Bush Sr.) over their Democratic opponents. But the Republicans became complacent and their courting of young voters became less of a priority in the early 90s, allowing the Democrats to briefly recapture the youth vote. In 2000, youth turnout was essentially a wash, splitting 48 - 46 in favor of Al Gore. It's only in the past three cycles that Democrats have secured a dominant advantage among Millennials. Win or lose, the Obama campaign will not be around forever. Let's not make the same mistakes as the GOP and shoot our highly successful youth infrastructure in the foot when we're barely out of the gate.

One of the greatest challenges that all progressive organizations face is the cyclical nature of progressive funding, which tends to ramp up during election years and dramatically scale back during off-years. This has been doubly true for youth organizations, which only recently began to receive substantial funds to sustain and occasionally expand their work. All of the points I've listed here provide a compelling rationale for donors to continue investing in youth organizing outside the scope of the Obama campaign. No matter how successful the Obama campaign is at reaching youth, it is foolish to sacrifice a growing youth infrastructure and put all of our faith in one campaign, and one candidate. Let's not get caught up in the myopia that so often accompanies Presidential politics. Let's have the vision to make smart, long-term investments in our youth and the sustainable institutions that can engage them for years to come.

Just a few links today . . .

• In the Washington Post, Jose Antonio Vargas notes that Left or Right, young or old, the internets hate John McCain.
• AlterNet interviews Keli Goff about her new book, Party Crashing, and the political trends among young African American voters.
• Across the Great Divide - a potentially interesting new blog chronicling the cross-country travels of a Millennial out to discover if his peers really are the "Next Great Generation."
• The Chicago Tribune runs the numbers and thinks young voters could tip a few vital swing states this year:
  

  If Obama could inspire just 10 percent more Democratic voters under 30 to go to the polls than did four years ago, that alone could be enough to switch Iowa and New Mexico from red to blue, the analysis suggests.

• Some pranksters (young freepers?) interrupted a conference call with Sherrod Brown, George Miller and the PIRGs about the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. - h/t PushBack
• Finally, John Stewart continues to warm my heart by mocking McCain. I think Stewart's man-crush is officially over.

Update II: MTV staffers wrote back to me saying that they do not place local advertisement and will only be accepting spots from the Presidential campaigns. So the whole idea of local politicians making use of this is moot. Another lost opportunity. So what's my final answer to the question "what are these ads really workth?" Not a whole lot unless you are MTV raking in the cash.

Update: So apparently there is one study looking at the efficacy of political ads targeted at young voters. A study by Green and Vavrek on the efficacy of 30 second cable ads by Rock the Vote found a statistically significant increase in youth turnout in the target areas:

The average intent to treat effect for voters between the ages of 18-24, for which the ads were designed, was 2 percentage points with a standard error of 1.37.

Not a huge bump, but a bump none the less. Still, it is worth studying more this year and this is more evidence that it can benefit candidates. However, peer-to-peer organizing is still far more effective at reaching younger voters. Contrary to Devine's message, that should remain the primary method used by campaigns to engage Millennials.
------------------------

I want to talk a little bit more about MTV's recent announcement that all of their cable channels not directed at children will now accept paid political advertisements.

This was prompted by a discussion amongst a few youth vote colleagues. Some of the ideas expressed were not originally my own, but I agree with them and don't have permission to quote the person who suggested them. Nevertheless, I think they're really important and deserve to see the light of day.

At the heart of the problem is the simple question "what are these ads really worth?" According to Tad Devine, the Democratic strategist quoted in the piece by Ad Age:

"I think MTV's decision to accept advertising is an important indication that the youth vote this year will have a real impact on the outcome of the election," said Tad Devine, a Democratic campaign strategist who handled Sen. John Kerry's campaign four years ago. "Now campaigns have the opportunity to reach young voters in a venue where they congregate, and I'm sure Obama's campaign will look seriously at advertising there, given his advantage with young people."

Not quite. While the Nielsen numbers for MTV might still be quite high, young people are far more likely to "congregate" online or in their communities: at bars, coffee shops, concert venues, barbershops, etc. Studies consistently show that peer to peer interaction is the surest way to encourage someone to vote. Democratic candidates would be far better served reaching out to young voters in these venues than in airing expensive spots on national television.

Reaching young voters is not magic. They are out there, in your community (for real!) and candidates and campaigns don't need MTV to magically open the door to those young voters.

However, this does present us with an opportunity. As far as I can tell, no one knows how effective targeted cable TV ads are at reaching young voters because no one has ever been able to test it out. This was tried in 2004, when the Rappaports tried to air ads on MTV through the organization Compare Decide Vote, but those ads were not accepted.

While I seriously doubt any national political advertisements on MTV will have any direct impact on increasing young voter turnout, it could potentially do a lot at the state level to increase name recognition for down-ballot candidates, move young people onto candidate websites, and turn them into online supporters. If a Senate candidate like Scott Kleeb or congressional candidate like Darcy Burner could (relatively cheaply) purchase some time only in their local markets, that might do a lot for getting their name out there among young voters and moving that support online. From there, a smart campaign should be able to move some of that support offline or collect enough information to increase the effectiveness of their voter registration and GOTV work.

One final caveat. According to Ad Age:

"MTV Networks will accept political advertising that is national in scope, sponsored by a legally qualified candidate, a candidate's official campaign committee, a nationally recognized political party, or the official congressional campaign committee(s) of a nationally recognized party."

My reading of this leads me to believe that issue advocacy organizations will NOT be allowed to purchase air time. That is a shame. This could be truly useful for a group like MoveOn or PowerShift in raising awareness about anti-war or pro-environment actions. Yes, it would open up MTV to conservative messages as well, but that's what the open market of ideas is about. This seems like a big missed opportunity to get more young people actively involved in the national policy discussion.

I've long worried that John McCain could be, as Arianna Huffington put it yesterday at the Personal Democracy Forum conference, a "Trojan Horse" candidate for the GOP. His perceived status as a maverick and his cultural savvy has long inoculated him from the troubles plaguing the Republican Party and boosted his image among young voters. Out of all the GOP contenders, he seemed most capable of reviving the Republican brand among a generation trending heavily Democratic.

According to a new poll by Democracy Corps, that image of McCain the Maverick has shattered.

Since Democracy Corps' last survey in April, John McCain's favorable ratings among young voters has dropped from 34 to 30%, and his unfavorable ratings have jumped over ten points, rising from 37 to 49%. Two of the supposedly biggest advantages a McCain candidacy brings to the GOP - his popularity with independents and his "liberal" views on immigration reform - also took serious hits in recent months. Among independent young voters, McCain's unfavorable rating nearly doubled, rising from 27% in April to 49% in June, and among Hispanics his unfavorable rating is now a whopping 70%. Apparently McCain's "principled" stand on immigration during the primaries was not enough to pull Hispanics back towards the Republican Party.

According to the report, McCain's favorable/unforable numbers now mirror those of the Republican Party, which has seen it's brand collapse among young voters in the past two years:

In a head to head match-up against Barack Obama, McCain loses the youth vote 66 - 33% among likely voters, a larger margin than Democrats enjoyed during the wave election of 2006.

What happened to McCain the Maverick? How did his highly-cultivated independent brand crash so fast?

Democracy Corps points to the transformation of McCain into "McSame," a typical politician tied to the failures of the Bush Presidency and the Republican Party. That notion has gained great traction in recent months, in particular around the issues of Iraq and the economy, the two most pressing issues in the eyes of young voters and two areas in which McCain is most tightly tied to the policies of the Bush Administration and the GOP.

According to Democracy Corps, when McCain's policies on Iraq and the economy are laid before young voters, along with potential consequences for young Americans, a majority of young voters (~60 - 65%) express serious to very serious doubts about McCain's candidacy. As long as McCain holds policy positions simlar to Bush and the GOP on those two major policy issues, and as long as Democrats, bloggers, and activists continue to explain the consequences of those policies to young voters, it's hard to see how McCain can recover his maverick status and gain ground among young voters.

CIRCLE has finally released their fact sheet summary of youth turnout in the presidential primary contests. The numbers are much the same as what we reported last week. Here's what you need to know:

• In the states for which data is available, 6.5 million young voters (17 - 29) participated in either the Democratic or Republican Presidential primaries.
• Overall turnout rose from 9% (recorded in 2000, the last comparable cycle), to 17%.
• This is the third consecutive cycle in which youth turnout increased.
• This is the first time youth turnout has increased three cycles in a row since 18 - 20 year olds were first granted the right to vote in 1971.
• In the 17 states for which comparable exit polling is available from 2000, all but one state (New York) saw an increase in youth turnout.
• Of those 17 states, 10 saw at least a 10 point jump in youth turnout (NH, MA, GA, MO, TX, TN, IA, MS, OH, OK).
• Obama captured the Democratic youth vote 60 - 38%.

Also remember from the Rock the Vote's fact sheet and last week's post mortem that young voter's share of the electorate rose from 9.4% in 2004 to 14.3% in 2008, and young voters participated in the Democratic primary over the GOP primary at a rate of 2 - 1.

The most interesting piece of new data in the CIRCLE report is the candidate breakdown in the GOP contest. More young Republicans voted against John McCain than voted for him, and he barely inched out Mike Huckabee to capture a plurality of youth votes among the top 4 candidates. As for Ron Paul - the so-called GOP youth candidate, he only received 10% of the youth vote. Can we finally put to rest the fiction that Ron Paul is the conservative youth candidate? At best he had a highly tech savvy core of youth supporters that amounted to very little at the polls.

It was reported yesterday that Congressman Paul is holding his own "shadow convention" this year. It will be interesting to see who shows up.

The level of douchebaggery exhibited by the California Republican Party is astounding. A recent bill brought before the state assembly would seek to allow 16 and 17 year olds to "pre-register" to vote, making them automatically eligible to vote when they turn 18. Not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill, and many seem to have over-exerted themselves in trying to explain why it's such a bad idea:

The bill passed the Assembly and was sent to the Senate last month on a party-line vote, 45-31, with no GOP support.

Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, criticized the bill as a Democratic power play.

"For all their sweet-tongue talk about doing what's right for the country, that's baloney," Adams said.

"The truth is, when you're young you tend to think like a liberal," he said. "As you get older and wiser … you tend to become more conservative."

Aside from the fact that the last statement is utter nonsense (pdf), how cynical, and how wrapped up in your own personal power do you need to be before you can make these statements without a little piece of your soul dying with them? I know that Republicans like to suppress the vote, but I never expected them to be so blatant about their motives. Usually they at least try to cloak it in their own "baloney" about "voter fraud" or some other fantasy menace.

One of Assemblyman Adam's GOP colleagues was more subtle:

Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said his opposition to AB 1819 has nothing to do with partisan politics. The state should excite teenagers about voting, not play a useless numbers game by amassing forms from disinterested students who can't cast ballots for two years, he said.

"(I want) to have a citizenry that is informed, engaged and interested," Niello said. "If you have that, they'll register to vote – and they'll vote."

So the state should "excite teenagers about voting" (whatever that means), but shouldn't actually allow them to register to vote. If the state GOP really believes that youth will naturally vote Democrat (not necessarily a given; see: Ronald Reagan), in what way is this not playing the numbers game?

The state should do whatever it can to increase registration rates among all voters, including youth who participate at lower rates precisely because many lack a valid registration. Anything else is playing politics with the voting rights of the electorate.

On the Op-Ed page today, the New York Times is running a surprisingly information-free look back at "what went wrong" with the Clinton campaign. How bad is it? Apparently, Clinton lost because she is too much like Hermione Granger. Seriously. How bad is it? So bad that Mark Penn and Michael Kinsley offer the best of slim pickings. There was one bright light though.

Buried in the 10th paragraph of an 11 graph piece (the most column inches of any contributor), in which he argues that it's not his fault, Mark Penn says this:

Are there a lot of other things the campaign could have done differently? Of course. We should have taken on Mr. Obama more directly and much earlier, and we needed a different kind of operation to win caucuses and to retain the support of superdelegates. From more aggressively courting young people earlier to mobilizing the full power of women, there are things that could have been done differently.

Emphasis is mine. This is a far cry from Mark Penn at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner:

At least two of Hillary Clinton’s upper-echelon advisers, Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn, were decidedly unimpressed .

“Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.”

Penn added, “Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state.”

While the importance of young voters as a Democratic constituency is far from the only lesson to be gleaned from this primary campaign, it is an important one. Young Voters in Iowa were subjected to major outreach from the Obama campaign and from outside partisan and nonpartisan organizations including (but not limited to) the Young Voter PAC, Rock the Vote, the Young Democrats, and the Student PIRGs. As a result, they overperformed their share of the electorate and came out in equal numbers to the "reliable" senior demographic. That was the beginning of the end for Clinton.

Here's to hoping that other Democratic candidates down the ballot learn that lesson. And here's to hoping that they know that there are many resources available to their campaigns to help learn how to reach that audience. From live-blogging here at Future Majority, to working with organizations like Young Voter PAC and Rock the Vote, or local youth orgs that may be organizing in their state. Reaching young voters is not rocket science, and there are many folks willing to help you do it.

Cross posted at The Nation.

After 17 months of campaigning, with five grueling months of primaries and caucuses, the Democratic nominating contest came to a close last night when Sen. Obama attained enough pledged delegates and super delegates to clinch the nomination. Hillary's non-concession speech notwithstanding, Barack Obama's coalition of young voters, independents, african americans, and what Chris Bowers calls "creative class" Democrats proved stronger than Clinton's older Democratic coalition. Obama is the nominee and, in the best possible world, will move on to become the next President of the United States.

This was an historic campaign on any number of levels - not least because of the glass ceilings that both major candidates breached with their impressive campaigns and photo-finish. It was also an historic campaign for young people, who emerged as major players in the race after over-performing in the Iowa caucus (pdf) and providing Senator Obama with the boost he needed to win the nomination. While race and gender divided the Boomers and alienated Democrats from themselves, such culture-war issues played little role in the decisions of young voters at the ballot box. Instead, Millennials of all race and ethnicities - men and women - voted overwhelmingly in favor of Senator Obama, making age one of the most accurate predictors of support in the race.

Obama's victory is our victory. Young voters walked precincts in the heat and snow for Obama. We caucused and cast our ballots. We contributed what we could and helped to out-raise one of the most impressive money-machines in Democratic politics. We designed posters and made videos. We recruited our social networks via Facebook and MySpace, and convinced our parents to switch their votes. In some states, like Iowa, we were the difference that pushed Obama over the edge. In others, we were part of a coalition that contributed to victory or kept the Senator competitive when he might otherwise have lost by a large margin. Senator Obama's nomination is the coming of age of a new generation in progressive politics, and here are just some of our credentials (from Rock the Vote - pdf):

• Over 6 million young people cast their ballots in this primary contest, more than double the turnout from 2004 or 2000 (the comparable years for Democrats and Republicans, respectively).
• Young people greatly increased their "share of the electorate" and were the driving force behind rising turnout.
• Young people voted Democratic more than 2 - 1.
• 4.9 million young voters cast their ballot for a Democratic candidate.
• Within the Democratic primary, young voters increased their share of the electorate from 9.4% in 2004 to 14.3% in 2008.
• With just a few exceptions, the media narrative has reversed. Whereas 5 months ago the youth vote barely registered on anyone's radar (except perhaps to mock Obama's strategy as a fool's errand), it is now regularly praised in the mainstream media. Time Magazine labeled 2008 the Year of the Youth Vote, and Business Week reported on the growing "YouthQuake."

This is only the beginning. The youth vote has increased in every major election since 2004 and by every indicator this is a trend which will continue.

Thanks to the long primary season, both the Clinton and Obama campaign contacted and registered new voters in every single state in the nation. Many of those new voters were under the age of 30. Combined with Obama's youth fellowship program and 50 state voter registration strategy, which will continue through the fall, and Howard Dean's own 50 state strategy, youth participation in the Democratic Party will grow by leaps and bounds over 2004.

But the DNC isn't alone. This summer and fall they will be joined by outside efforts conducted by partisan and non-partisan youth organizations alike. These groups - such as Rock the Vote, the New Voters Project, the Young Democrats, the Bus Federation, Swing Semester, and The League - will register over a million new voters online and make hundreds of thousands of contacts in the field. They will conduct non-traditional outreach to under-served groups that most campaigns miss, and they will put a cultural spin on political action that could turn new voters into life long activists.

Also driving increased turnout the rise of the Millennials, a highly progressive, civic-minded generation that believes in the importance of being engaged, their own power to effect change, and the suitability of government as a vehicle to make that change a reality. With their preferred candidate now leading the Democratic ticket, amidst a poisonous political climate that has set the country at odds with their progressive values, there seems little chance that the trends of the last four years will suddenly and unexpectedly reverse course.

Turnout will likely rise across the board this year. The voter registration numbers so far virtually guarantee it. But if trends hold, it will be up the most among Millennials, not just to the benefit of Obama, but to hundreds of candidates down ballot in close races where a few hundred new young voters can tip the balance. The youth vote is at a crossroads. There are challenges ahead to be sure, and nothing is guaranteed, but if things continue along this path, the youth vote stands ready to finally fulfill its promise - first looked for in 1971 with the passage of the 26th Amendment.

I'm guest blogging for The Nation for the next month. I'll be posting 3 - 4 posts per week, some of which will be cross-posted here.

My first piece went up today. It's a rebuttal to that Paul Maslin piece in Salon last week:

For as long as I've been involved in youth organizing (about five years now), our most difficult adversary has been the press. During the 2004 election, the media over-hyped the circus that was P. Diddy's "Vote or Die," while ignoring the real work on the ground done by groups with far less star power (and consequently a smaller draw for a rag looking to sell papers or pull in eyeballs). After the election, despite large gains made in youth turnout and participation, the media largely botched its analysis by falsely declared the youth vote – once again – little more than electoral vaporware.

It's been one of the great victories for the youth organizing community this cycle that the media narrative has finally – and surprisingly, accurately – turned in our favor. Which is why I was hugely disappointed this weekend to read a piece in Salon written by Democratic pollster and fellow Deaniac Paul Maslin that proclaimed the youth vote to be "not that big of a deal."

To be fair, Maslin gets it right when he says that youth turnout is about more than Obama. The increases we've seen are a long time in coming and are due to a confluence of factors including: the increased size and natural engagement of the Millennials generation, over four years of organizing work in the field and online to engage young voters on the part of progressive youth organizers, and a real devotion of time and campaign resources on the part of the Democratic Presidential candidates.

But Maslin gets it wrong when he tries to lay blame for Kerry's loss at the feet of young people. Voters under 30 not only increased their turnout in larger numbers than any other age demographic in 2004, they were also the only age demographic to vote for John Kerry over President Bush. Maslin's thinking is common among youth-vote critics who clutch to a nonsensical binary world-view that a friend of mine summed-up rather aptly: "Everyone expects young people to fail until they succeed, and then they didn't succeed enough."

Read the rest here.

I'm about to head to the airport to catch a plane back to NYC. I'll have my thoughts on Day 2 of the YDA conference up once I get home. In the meantime, here's stuff you should know about:

• Two stories - each of which merit a response - were posted this week that tried to downlplay the youth vote. The first was in Salon: Will the Youth Vote Win it for Obama?. The second was in Campaigns and Elections: Will the Youth Vote Deliver for Obama?. Both pieces get at least some of the story wrong. I'll try to have a fuller response up later this week.
• Mother Jones is surveying the state of student activism. Take the survey.
• Be sure to check out Oh Boy Obama, a Digg.com clone where supporters propose ideas to the campaign where they are voted on (and promoted to the top) by fellow Obama supporters. This is a really good idea. The only thing it is lacking is attention from the campaigna and a mechanism for project follow-through.
• Tech President says that Obama spent $3million on online advertising since between January and April.
• Dana Goldstein at Tapped is concerned that young evangelicals are more hard core about abortion than their parents. I'm not too worried - by their own research (and that of PEW) there are fewer and fewer self-identifying young evangelicals every year and more and more they are concerned less with culture war issues like abortion and more with social justice issues like poverty and the environment.
• Black bloggers and the DNC are fighting over the lack of diversity in the DNC blogger pool. - Hip Hop Caucus
• Great profile of Lawrence Lessig on his copyright and anti-corruption work. - The Nation
• Project Streamline is trying to simplify the grant making process. They've got about 8 foundations signed on for what signs like the grantmaking equivalent of the "common application" for college admission. Development Directors everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief. - Tactical Philanthropy