Doing More With Less

July 24, 2008

One of my all-time favorite television shows is HBO's The Wire. So it's a little surreal to feel like I'm living in an episode. No, I'm not involved in the drug trade or police department. I'm not a stevedore losing my union job, and I'm not a school teacher struggling with No Child Left Behind. Like the reporters and police officers in the fifth and final season of the show, though, I feel like my work, and the work of many of my colleagues are not being adequately supported. In short, the youth vote community is being asked "to do more with less."

As I've written many times before, 2004 was a boom year for youth organizing as the progressive movement built many new institutions (and strengthened others) to reach out to young voters. There were two driving forces behind this boom: entrepreneurial activism on the part of young people, and a willingness among donors to take risks and support that work. The results were impressive and verified by independent research.

This year, the "surging" youth vote is one of the most important stories of the election cycle, and one would think that interest in moving as many young voters to the polls as possible would be a high priority. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. Many of the organizations responsible for engaging young voters in 2004 and 2006, and many new organizations working to fill holes in the youth engagement sphere, are struggling to raise funds and scale up their operations for the fall.

In Youth Organizing, the Old Becomes New Again

July 19, 2008

Update: This post has been updated in response to the comment by Jesse Kocher to more accurately represent the relationships and roles of Driving Votes, Swing Semester, and Swing the State. Thanks to Jesse for the clarifications.

In 2004, Democratic politics witnessed a boom in youth organizing. Young people created dozens of new institutions that pioneered non-traditional methods for engaging their peers on and offline. Drinking clubs that maintained political interest and moved people slowly into political activism, road trips to swing states, peer to peer voter registration and candidate fundraising at small live music events, the list goes on and on.

These were not always the best and most efficient organizations on the block, but they identified and filled a vacuum in progressive youth politics that was not filled by traditional organizations like the PIRGs and the College Democrats. They pioneered new tactics, changed the way that many political activists thought about organizing, and they engaged many young voters that would not otherwise become involved in politics, helping to drive 4.3 million new young voters to the polls in 2004.

The Web Will Not Kill Traditional Organizing

July 10, 2008

Is technology undermining the much-vaunted community values of Millennials and creating a generation of semi-activists clicking for change on their computers, but ultimately disconnected and disempowered from each other and from the levers of real social change? This is the thesis posited by Sally Kohn, the director of the Movement Vision Lab at the Center for Community Change in an op-ed published in the Christian Science Monitor last week:

On their own, for example, none of the activists in the civil rights movement had sufficient power and influence to end segregation. Coming together in local committees, led mainly by young people, they used the tools of face-to-face community organizing, developing shared strategies to address shared problems. And they took shared action; in sit-ins and Freedom Rides, they formed groups that were more than the sum of individual parts.

By contrast, Internet activism is individualistic. It's great for a sense of interconnectedness, but the Internet does not bind individuals in shared struggle as the face-to-face activism of the 1960s and '70s did. It allows us to channel our individual power for good, but it stops there.

(10) Comments

Leveraging the Power of Celebrities

July 3, 2008

In the minds of many, the youth vote is synonymous with celebrities, and not without reason. Ever since the day that Rock the Vote opened its doors in 1991, celebrity spokespeople have been the face of most campaigns targeting young voters. Through PSAs, high-profile concerts and an over-saturation of media exposure, celebrities have cajoled, encouraged and issued ultimatums to America's youth about the importance of heading to the polls.

It's a strategy that has produced mixed results at best.

The steady stream of celebrities that pour into politics every four years has done wonders to build the youth brand that is Rock the Vote, and it can often catapult newer organizations like the Hip Hop Summit Action Network, Declare Yourself, and Vote or Die into national prominence. Such high-profile supporters - and the media attention they garner - are also a big draw for donors, making celebrity-driven strategies attractive to any organization looking to sustain its work. But celebrities are often imperfect spokespeople who can hijack the message of youth organizers at work in the trenches (see: P. Diddy in 2004), and their presence often obscures the truth about youth organizing - that it takes hard work in the field, not a lot of flash and bling, to drive young people to the polls.

Why the Candidate Can't Secure the Youth Vote Alone

June 23, 2008

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 (unscientific) 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:

--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. This showed in the youth turnout numbers and share of the electorate numbers, which were lower in the other 48 states.

(8) Comments

Even "Maverick McCain" Can't Connect with Young Voters

June 24, 2008

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.

Will Rock the Vote Rock the Vote in 2008?

June 11, 2008

Rock the Vote made a name for itself in 1992. First by defending the voting rights of students during the New Hampshire primary, and then by running a coordinated field and media campaign that helped elect President Bill Clinton and substantially raised youth turnout for the first time since 1972. One year later, the group helped pass the Motor Voter law. That was the peak of Rock the Vote as an organization.

Over the course of the next decade, two things happened. First, Rock the Vote's field apparatus atrophied during the mid 1990s as the organization morphed into a media vehicle. Concurrently, that media vehicle became the biggest brand in youth politics, rivaled only briefly by P. Diddy's "Vote or Die" initiative in 2004.

While RTV held the biggest name brand in youth politics, youth turnout declined in 1996 and 2000, and a lot of political minded folks concluded that Rock the Vote wasn't getting the job done. As described in my book, Youth to Power, the vacuum left in youth organizing by the failures of Rock the Vote in part inspired the boom in youth organizing that occurred between 2003 and 2007.

Youth Activists: Beware Social Security!

June 13, 2008

It's common knowledge that Social Security is "the third rail" of American politics, but this year it is doubly true for youth organizations. We're in the middle of what may be the most important election in our lifetime and Democrats stand a damn good chance of not only winning the Presidency, but of capturing sizable majorities in both chambers of Congress that could virtually guarantee a progressive policy reformation not seen since the New Deal or the Great Society.

In election after election, young voters are choosing Democratic candidates over Republicans by large margins. On issue after issue, young voters hold progressive stands on how to solve the problems that affect our nation. Except on the issue of Social Security.

A recent report by the Center for American Progress and Demos found that 74 percent of Millennials are supportive of plans to privatize social security compared to 41 percent of adults over 60. That's the bad news. The good news is that this is less about their ideology than their particular stage of life. It's common for younger voters to feel less secure about Social Security (and their prospects for receiving it when they retire), and thus be open to more ideas as to how best we can "fix" the perceived problem.

Three Myths About the Youth Vote

June 9, 2008

In any conversation about the role of young voters in the political process, there are a number of arguments that - without fail - creep into the discussion. Once these myths enter the debate, any further discussion is usually rendered moot and the majority of participants tend to side with the person propagating those myths and against youth advocates. It's sort of a reverse Godwin's Law for the youth vote. It would almost be funny if it didn't have dire consequences for our movement and the Democratic Party.

So today I'd like to try to dispel some of those myths in the interest of encouraging a more hopeful (and fact-based) discussion during the rest of the month here at Passing Through.

Myth 1 - The youth never turn out. This is false. Young voters will turn out if you ask them, the problem is that the Democratic Party stopped asking a long time ago. Celebrities and media campaigns won't cut it. "Asking" requires real, peer to peer field work - the same type of work that campaigns use to target older voters. In 1992, Rock the Vote ran that field component and youth turned out for Bill Clinton. In 1996 and 2000, there was no similar field effort and youth turnout declined.

Youth Vote at the Crossroads

June 5, 2008

After seventeen months of campaigning, with five grueling months of primaries and caucuses, the Democratic nominating contest came to a close Tuesday when Barack Obama attained enough pledged delegates and super delegates to clinch the nomination. Hillary Clinton's non-concession speech notwithstanding, 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 and providing Obama with the boost he needed to win the nomination. While race and gender divided the Boomers and alienated Democrats, 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 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 him. 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: