MyDD :: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth Vote in '08 and Beyond

The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth Vote in '08 and Beyond

by Mike Connery, Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 03:54:50 PM EST

Cross posted at Future Majority. bumped--Chris

We've talked a lot lately about young voters. How they turned out in near record numbers, and broke heavily democratic. Pollsters, bloggers and strategists are also busy promoting the fact that if a someone votes for a party 3 times (before they turn 30),they are likely to become a life-long voter for that party. The new conventional wisdom is this: "youth voted Democratic in 2004 and in 2006. If we get them in 2008, we've locked a generation the size of the baby boomers for life."

While technically correct, there are some assumptions in that statement that need to be challenged.

First, I think that the "2/3 shooting for 3/3" frame is the wrong mindset with which to approach the upcoming election. "Young voters" are not a solid block. The category is fluid by its very nature. I'm a cusp Millennial - 28 years old. After one more election I will no longer be a "young voter." From now on, every election will be 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3 for somebody, and we should create institutions and strategies that organize around that principle. Second, we need to recognize that, despite our recent successes, our current methods are inadequate to that task and adjust accordingly. Young voters still volunteer in their communities far more than they participate in politics. We can do better. And if we do, we'll win even bigger. In whatever strategies we adopt, our goal should be closing that "volunteer gap."

So let's talk about this.

First let's examine somewhat more critically our gains among young voters in '04 and '06, which I think are more reflective of "Bush on the Ballot" than a solid democratic message

It's true that in 2006 young people broke Democratic overall by almost 2-1. That trend carried throughout almost all races - Senate, House, Governor:

However, this does not necessarily represent an affirmative vote FOR Democrats. According to CIRCLE's latest examination of the exit polling, Young voters were more likely than any other demographic to be dissatisfied or angrily dissatisfied with President Bush.

And 39% of young voters viewed their congressional vote as a direct referendum on the Bush presidency, not the efficacy of their congressperson. Finally, young voters were a heavily undecided voting block. A full 44% of young voters said they made their voting decision within a week of election day.

So while I share most everyone's view that the trends are extremely encouraging, and we've locked up 2/3 of the necessary elections to solidify a sizable portion of Millennials as life-long Democratic voters, I don't think that the 3rd and final election is necessarily a lock. With Bush off the ballot, the electoral conditions will be different in 2008.

So the question becomes, how do we solidify this "first" of many 3/3 elections, and how do we keep that trend going into the future? This gets to my second point. The answer, I think, lies in a long-term strategic vision that can bridge the Millennial's gap between volunteering and voting. It will require a shift in thinking that expands the political engagement of young voters beyond the current cyclical programs (which ramp up in September and disappear by December), towards a more comprehensive vision in which participation is one aspect of an overall lifestyle. Again, let's start with the data.

As Robert Putnam has recently noted (click to play audio clip), young Americans volunteer in their communities more than any other demographic. According to the October survey by the Harvard Institute of Politics, 51% of 18-24 year olds have volunteered in the last year, and 58% of those volunteered at least once a month. Those in high school, college, or grad school were even more likely to volunteer, with 73% of 18-19 year olds volunteering, and 65% of university students.

Compare that to political participation and voter turnout. According to the Harvard IOP survey, only 19% of young people said that they had participated in government, politics, or an issue-related organization in the last year (note the wording: voting is not included in this activity list). Voter turnout among this group was 47% in 2004 (18-24), and 24% in 2006 (pdf) (18-29).

So even in the best of circumstances - during a highly contested Presidential election - voter turnout still lags behind community service by as much as 22 percentage points. How do we close that gap?

Young Voter Strategies and CIRCLE would tell you that peer-to-peer organizing is the key. In in a recent study of GOTV strategies (pdf), YVS found peer-to-peer organizing was the most cost effective ways to reach young voters (~$10 per vote), and increased turnout 7-10% points. Furthermore, 50% of the effects of peer-to-peer canvassing carry over to the next election with no additional GOTV efforts.

Sounds great, right? Well it is great, and these are probably necessary programs for the foreseeable future, but here's the rub. The report defines peer-to-peer outreach as door knocks by someone of a similar age. And the studies upon which the report is based are conducted only in the weeks leading up to an election. That's great for increasing voter turnout around an election, but it is a very limited view of peer-to-peer outreach. It's a limited view of "youth participation," and I believe that it has measurable consequences for youth participation.

According to the Harvard IOP survey, Millennials view community service as a more effective avenue for affecting change - both nationally and locally - than political participation. So if we want to close that volunteer gap, our institutions must be rooted in the local community, they must be geared toward changing/improving the local community, and they can't pack up shop after 3 month spurts around major elections. If we can create programs that reflect these concerns and appeal to Millennials' natural desire to do good works, we'll not only increase the turnout rate among young voters, but the health of our political institutions, and - I think - build the structures that can make 2008 the first of many "third elections" for years to come.

What does that look like? There are some examples out there already. Democrats Work is a relatively new group that organizes local democrats to perform community service work as Democrats. They clean parks, help the homeless, and do any number of community service work while wearing a T-shirt proclaiming their status as Democrats. With each activity they are building a reputation for the Democratic Party as an organization that works in the community and produces tangible, immediate benefits to that community. John Edwards - as many of you now know - is organizing his campaign along a similar model. His volunteer service/campaign organization, OneCorps, is a social network for his supporters dedicated to much the same purpose as Democrats Work.

In terms of voter education and basic political involvement, Music for America and Drinking Liberally offer the models for sustained engagement that directly impact their communities by creating community. Music for America does this by offering young voters the opportunity to educate and register their peers at local, and intimate (read: non-stadium) live music events. Drinking Liberally does so by building a community around local political involvement. Both models are peer-to-peer, and both offer more sustained, and localized, ways to be involved.

These models are ripe for the Young Democrats and College Democrats as they struggle to make themselves relevant again. Imagine if Young and College Dem organizations focused on community involvement and social activities for their members 9 months of the year, channeled into 3 months of hardcore activism during election season. After a year or two, you'd probably see a dramatic swelling of the ranks in these organizations, as well as an uptick in the effectiveness of their "traditional" peer-to-peer programs during election season.

If we want to close the volunteer gap, and create structures that will win the ever changing constituency that is "young voters," these are the types of programs that we need to pursue. But here's the other rub - in order to get these programs up and running, we need money and we need proof of concept. Donors need to see hard evidence that these programs work. Which means that YVS and CIRCLE need to create metrics and study these types of organizations. Right now, that's not happening, so we are locked in a somewhat vicious cycle whereby certain programs that are measurable (door knocking, robocalling - traditional tactics that ramp up in September and disappear in November) receive all the attention, gobble up all the donor money, and lock us into a short term vision that limits our ability to grow the movement and maximize our gains among younger voters.

If we want to ensure that 2008 is only the first of many "thirds" that turn young voters into progressive voters for decades to come, we need to break this cycle.

Tags: Youth, Young Voters, Millennials, turnout, field, organizing, 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

mike,

as always, great stuff. i've got some questions and caveats to consider.

1. volunteer participation among young people is sometimes non-voluntary, because it's required by a high school or college. so the numbers participating in community service may be inflated beyond the "natural" tendencies of millenials. (and otoh, even involuntary service could turn someone on to the power of community service work.)

2. i think you sidestep a major issue in this passage:

According to the Harvard IOP survey, Millennials view community service as a more effective avenue for affecting change - both nationally and locally - than political participation. So if we want to close that volunteer gap, our institutions must be rooted in the local community, they must be geared toward changing/improving the local community, and they can't pack up shop after 3 month spurts around major elections.

specifically - why do young folks view community service as more effective than politics? a very similar tendency is found among political moderates in mainline churches. they are happy to help out with social justice work when it's at a food pantry or literacy program, but they don't want to get involved in politics.

there is a broader question of selling civics, and the notion that political involvement can create lasting and tangible change. young people, perhaps, are not enough persuaded of that concept, and that might be why they're not participating in government. which leads me to my next point.

3. peer to peer organizing is not a whole lot different, in some ways, than community organizing, in the style of Industrial Areas Foundation and others. the concept is that members of a community work together, with the help of an organizer, to target some problem and fix it. it is a difficult, lengthy, and challenging process, but it can be emphatically effective when done right.

i wonder if the best medicine for this problem would be an organization which conducts community organizing among young people, to solve the problems that ail them. it would make the most sense to base such an effort in myspace and facebook, and i think there are examples of previous organizing efforts in each site which might be a good place to start.

MFA, from my understanding, tried to engage young people at concerts and to bring them into the political process through issues that would be of interest to them. nice try, but in some ways too cute by half. for one thing, not all young people go to concerts, and for another, they are far from ideal venues in which to engage a person. i've tried it myself and it's just not that easy, and rarely if ever produces tangible results.

i think the MFA idea is a valuable one, if it were paired with a parallel effort to organize young people outside of concerts spaces. if there were already a healthy effort to organize young folks around common gripes and to bring their power to bear on the political process, then concert outreach could serve as a powerful reinforcement of that effort (as could bar outreach, a la Drinking Liberally).

as for what such an effort would be, I don't really know. United Professionals is doing something interesting by organizing young people who want to be professionals but are having a hard time in the cutthroat labor market. There are a few good facebook organizing efforts to look at. based on my small slice of the world, I'd guess that some leading issues for young folks to tackle would include things like health care, crime, and the cost of education.

overall, i think you raise some good points. but i think trying to encourage a group that in some ways is apolitical to get involved in government, without making any substantive efforts to demonstrate the tangible benefits of civic engagement, is not going to be as powerful as bona fide organization and empowerment.

Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org

by Shai Sachs on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 02:00:34 PM EST

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

I'm going to say "fair enough" on your first point, and skip right to the second and third.

On the second point, if you go in and read the topline data on the IOP survey, a majority of young people view politics as relevant to their lives, and as a vehicle for change - but not as effective a vehicle as community service.

So I take some issue with your premise that young people don't participate because they view participation as ineffective. They view it as less effective.

I think the reason they don't participate is twofold, bigger, more immediate results from community work, and the view that politics is not a noble pursuit. That its dirty in some way.

That's why I like the idea of having political groups engage more directly in community service projects (or social justice if that's what you want to call it, though I think that term limits the scope of what I'm suggesting).

Such programs could become the vehicles by which politics is both viewed more favorably and as more effective at producing change.

i wonder if the best medicine for this problem would be an organization which conducts community organizing among young people, to solve the problems that ail them. it would make the most sense to base such an effort in myspace and facebook, and i think there are examples of previous organizing efforts in each site which might be a good place to start.

Not sure what you mean here, and don't want to misinterpret. Can you provide more details on what this would like like and what agenda items might be pursued? Is it local, national, or both?

for one thing, not all young people go to concerts, and for another, they are far from ideal venues in which to engage a person. i've tried it myself and it's just not that easy, and rarely if ever produces tangible results.

First, we shouldn't be looking for a panacea. The strategy I'm espousing would require work from multiple organizations. We can't think broadcast anymore, its all about the niche.

Second, there is a study (though not a thorough one because there was no control and not a whole lot of data) that showed that MFA had a measurable - and positive - impact on turnout. No time to dig it up now, but it was written by Ryan Friedrichs of the CIRCLE/YVS crowd. I'm sure you can Google it.

That said:

i think the MFA idea is a valuable one, if it were paired with a parallel effort to organize young people outside of concerts spaces. if there were already a healthy effort to organize young folks around common gripes and to bring their power to bear on the political process, then concert outreach could serve as a powerful reinforcement of that effort (as could bar outreach, a la Drinking Liberally).

I agree that this is the biggest flaw in MFA's model. there is no progression, no way to move newly engaged people into more political work. This is a piece of the puzzle no one has solved yet.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 02:21:37 PM EST

organizing young people (none / 0)

for a good and reasonably brief profile of what IAF-style organizing might look like, read the first chapter of Bob Putnam's book "Better Together". it is a good summary of the work done by Valley Interfaith, an IAF affiliate in Texas. the essence is that it organizes folks with very, very limited resources (living in trailer parks with no paved roads, etc.) to advocate on their own behalf to get the government to help them.

there are a lot of nuances and artwork behind the IAF community organizing model, but the heart of it is that it brings disempowered people together to lobby the government on their own behalf. community organizing is an empowerment and leadership development process. as it progresses, the people who are organized become (hopefully) steadily more and more invested in the notion that government is there to serve them, that they are capable of and have a right to demand things from the government, etc.

my argument is that the best way to engage young folks in government is to organize them to advocate on their own behalf around issues of concern to them, such as health care, crime, the cost of education, etc.

i think this is superior to encouraging political groups to take up community service projects; let me explain why by way of example.

i think what you are envisioning with your idea is a scenario that goes something like this:

1. College Dems of State University decide to volunteer for shifts at the local homeless shelter

2. Through various avenues (stories in the newspaper, word of mouth, the group's website), word gets out about what the group is up to.

3. students at the university who are not interested in politics hear about what the dems are up to, and decide they're not so bad, and maybe they should join the dems.

there are several reasons i think this approach won't be very effective.

1. one reason why students don't join the college dems is that they don't enjoy political work like canvassing and phonebanking, and that's the heart of what college dems do. i can imagine a handful of students who get excited by community service and decide that canvassing and phonebanking, though they may be unenjoyable, are worth it if they get a chance to volunteer; but i can't imagine it's a very large number, especially given that most campuses have plenty of other community service opportunities available.

2. another reason students don't get involved is because they feel they don't have enough information, or they are confused by politics (see more on this below.) this activity doesn't really change that reality.

3. i think the unintentional message sent by the college dems in this hypothetical scenario is "we need to do community service in addition to political work in order to make a difference", and this message only reinforces the problematic concept that participating in government is somehow not enough.

on the other hand, i do think you are onto something, in the sense that community service projects are a sort of dog whistle mechanism. they tell people who are concerned about the state of the world, "I am one of you."

i want to address your point, which is that millenials view political engagement as an effective way of addressing national and local issues. that is no doubt the case, at least on face of it; millenials agree overwhelmingly that political engagement is effective at the national level (60%) and at the local level (71%), with similar numbers for community volunteerism (63%, 82%)

but now look at some other numbers from the study:

How has 9/11 shaped your views toward politics and government? [Open-ended question; responses
coded below]
Total College Non-College
Made more distrustful of government ........... 31% 35% 29%

I need more practical information about politics before I get involved.
Total College Non-College
NET: Agree ........................................ .......... 63% 66% 62%

Elected officials seem to be motivated by selfish reasons.
Total College Non-College
NET: Agree ........................................ .......... 78% 81% 76%

Politics has become too partisan.
Total College Non-College
NET: Agree ........................................ .......... 74% 80% 72%

(excuse craptacular formatting, please :)

I'm cherry-picking data a bit here, but I think it's fair to say there's some deep ambivalence about politics in this generation. More millenials state - in an open-ended question! - that 9/11 made them more distrustful of government than provide any other answer. And millenials feel they need practical information about political engagement before they can get started.

It seems that what's needed is a crash course in practical civics, delivered in a way that will open up civics to millenials. I think community organizing of young folks will do more to serve that need than community service projects by political groups.

Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org

by Shai Sachs on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 03:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gotta be worth our time (none / 0)

This is right on: people only get involved in stuff they think will work. One of the most fundamental tasks we have is convincing more people that politics is an effective use of their time.

I think that case can be made, but it will get a lot easier once we see something good come out of the federal government. As it is, I think picking up some of the great state and local developments is a good place to start.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

by Josh Koenig on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 03:42:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"social justice" (none / 0)

Mike, you wondered about the term "social justice." That's what we call it in church when we staff homeless shelters and collect cans for food pantries. That's the most basic level, and some social justice programs are deeper and wider, such as advocating peace or opposing capital punishment. (Barack Obama is a member of my church, and what you hear from him I sometimes hear from the pulpit.)

by joyful alternative on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "social justice" (none / 0)

Thanks Joyful.

I work for a social justice organization. I was wondering about the distinctions that PlantingLiberally was drawing between community organizing, community service, and social justice.

Seems to me that there's not much distinction when you get down to it. It's really just the semantics with which the participants are comfortable.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

All points well-taken mike. My feeling remains that the real way to do any of this stuff is going to be outside the primary campaigns, but we'll see.

While we all know the importance of funding, I think waiting on that, or worse building programs which depend on large infusions of big-dollar donor cash, is a losing strategy. It creates a system of dependency which even under ideal circumstance will be a major stumbling block to sustainability. I think we all know examples where the dynamics created big-donor-dependency has been harmful.

If I were to make this analogous to the business world, I would say we need a solid business model to bootstrap (as Drinking Liberally did) more than we need to chase after Venture Capital. While a timely investment can help take a business to scale, unless it has its own stream of revenue and support, once that capital dries up so does the business.

It seems to me that there should be some way to combine the sale of cultural products (t-shirts, etc) with a culture of small-dollar donations or club "memberships" and create a multimillion dollar revenue stream. I mean, the demographics we're talking about are the most prized by advertisers... if we were able to build a site with bukku traffic, there would be revenue out the ass there as well.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

by Josh Koenig on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 03:39:47 PM EST

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

I think its a chicken and egg problem. No doubt what you are describing is the optimal way something like this would come about, but after looking around for the last 2 years, I just don't see it.

People aren't necessarily going to bootstrap these things into existence in off years. I think a Presidential cycle is a good way to get orgs started.

You're right in that relying on venture capital can make for some pretty unsustainable organizing - and its something to watch out for and plan against (something which wasn't necessarily done in '03 and '04).

Lots of ideas and groups will pop up in the next two years, hopefully one or two struggle through and do become sustainable.

As for a timely infusion of cash to make a sustainable model scale - I think DL is still waiting around for their funding, despite all their successes.

Finally, I'd be happy just to see some innovating orgs employing social capital get some financial backing for studies to determine effectiveness. That could bring in some medium sized donors - not a bad place to start building a small donor pool, and a damn site better than starting off from the venture cap model.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 03:58:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

Mike, didn't you have some ideas for starting a bar in Philly for progressive/indie music types a while ago? And didn't it win some funding or something?

I think selling T shirts and ads is fine, but only the tip of the ice berg. There should be, in principle, many ways in which we can utilize hybrid for profit/nonprofit models in order to be sustainable. The liberal's guide to <your city> was just one example of the kind of project which might grow to sustainability without needing much venture funding.

in the case of community organizing, which i advocate above, it's a bit harder to see where sustainability becomes a reality. community organizing is just plain difficult and expensive, and it doesn't usually lead to selling lots of bumper stickers.

one thing that occurs to me is that to the degree a community organizer solves financial problems for young folks, it could try to skim some off the top. for example, you could start a group to help young folks advocate for lower tuition at state universities; then charge membership dues, which would be more than compensated by the lower tuition. in some ways, this is exactly what United Professionals is doing now, and what unions have been doing for years.

another point about sustainability is that in many cases you can leverage existing free resources, like office and meeting space, especially when we're talking about organizing students on campus. that's usually not enough to completely eliminate costs, but it can put some serious dents in the expenses side.

Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org

by Shai Sachs on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:08:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

yet another (obvious) point is that leveraging free social networking sites for organizing also lowers costs, although it will probably hurt the organization's effectiveness.

Strengthening the progressive movement through liberal entrepreneurship http://www.plantingliberally.org

by Shai Sachs on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 04:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

The business plan was mostly Alex's idea. I was just helping him refine it a bit and did some writing for them.

Case in point, though, they weren't able to get all the funding in time, and by the time they did, the venue they were looking at fell through.

What, in your view, is the difference between community organizing and local political groups doing work in the community?

I agree with you w/r/t student groups. Organizing against tuition increases or the corrupt corporate student lenders is a great issue, and one I've been advocating that youth groups take up for years now.

To get back to the money issue though, how would college Democrats or Young Democrats run such a campaign when they are so disorganized and many lack the funds to run a coordinated campaign?

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 12:23:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

It's stunning to me that nobody has mentioned the State PIRGS yet. Love them or hate them, they are doing (and have been doing for 30 years) exactly the kind of thing you're talking about here: leveraging student fees to pay for an organizing program that involves students on campus, offering those students summer jobs that maintain their involvement in the movement, offering those students full-time organizing jobs after college to build their skills and deepen their political engagement. The list of progressive organizations that PIRG alums work for nationwide is stunning, and points to the success that the PIRGs have in building leaders.

The PIRGs' New Voters Project (which I worked on) was the largest youth voter registration and mobilization effort in history, and I believe was the basis for the numbers Mike cited on youth voter turnout. In three months I personally registered 1500 young people to vote, and my office in Eugene, OR registered more than 40,000. This was possible because they had the sustainable canvassing infrastructure in place well ahead of time. They had the staff to manage the offices, they had the know-how to run a huge canvass, they had the experienced leadership to oversee the effort nationally.

Admittedly, the New Voters' Project is a bad example of a sustainability because the funding came almost entirely from a massive grant from Pew, but the PIRGs' ability to move New Voters Project canvassers into leadership positions in year-round canvass offices and organizing efforts was one of the keys to the recent boom of canvassing. And it's probably the only organization dedicated to youth voter turnout in 2004 that is still around heading into 2007, so that's something.

I know the PIRGs have plenty of problems, but to ignore their achievements (and failures) is to ignore an amazing wealth of data about how to build sustainable progressive movements.

by hubbird on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 05:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

That said, I don't think canvassing is the answer, at least not in the current climate. There needs to be a concerted effort to either make canvassing more palatable to young people, or to figure out another equally effective turnout tool.

MFA's model (make canvassing sexy) is good, but can only go so far, pretty much only to the doors of the venue. There really isn't any way to make door to door election day canvassing in the rain sexy other than to build the long-term political awareness and engagement that movements are all about.

by hubbird on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 05:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

I don't know that I'd call PIRGs sustainable when they have a burnout rate of something like 85%. I actually tend to think that canvassing operations like PIRGs are the opposite of the answer since they drive so many people away from politics and very rarely provide an avenue into longterm employment. They've been around for decades, and I didn't see youth engagement spiking until '04 when alternate models emerged and a particularly egregious adminstration spurred people to action.
'
And there are plenty of groups that started in 2004 or existed in '04 that are moving into '07.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:54:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

by hubbird on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:58:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

Oops.

Anyways, like I said, the PIRGs have many many problems and are far from perfect. I think a lot of people are learning what not to do because of those failings and I think it's positive.

At the same time, isn't it worth learning from what they do well? Here are a few things:

They are really good at figuring out how to make things pay for themselves. That's something the rest of the progressive movement has struggled with, and it seems to be an important part of the conversation you're having here. This isn't just about canvassing, which is the self-funding model that most people focus on when talking about the PIRGs. The key is that they don't separate fund-raising from any other aspect of the organization. Almost everybody, from a canvasser going out on their first day to a student organizer to a state director, is expected to cover their own salary, whether through canvassing or student fees, or grant writing.

They are good at taking people with limited to no political experience and shaping them into highly politicized activists. This is something I haven't seen any other group do as successfully. You are right that they don't provide as many opportunities for long term employment as they do summer jobs, but that's because there are tons of summer jobs. It's a nice thought that everyone who walks through the door for an interview is another committed activist ready to dedicate their life to the cause, but that's just not the case. A lot of (and I would venture to say most) people want to help out, but not dive in. Another very significant chunk of summer canvassers honestly don't have the basic skills to be activists yet. The directing staff work very actively to build everyone's skills and to simultaneously identify canvassers who show promise, even those who might not be ready to make the commitment, and give them more responsibility immediately, which forces them to either step up or step down. It's not the warm and fuzziest way to operate, but because they cast such a wide net with the summer canvass, they can identify a lot of folks who would fall through the cracks of other progressive groups.

I'm not saying the PIRGs are something that any new model should start from, by any means. Just that there's stuff they do well and that's worth looking at.

by hubbird on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 01:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can I get a bump in my allowance, dad? (none / 0)

I think DL is still waiting around for their funding, despite all their successes.

This is sort of my point. Waiting around for funding is a bad way to think about it, and what would DL do with a million dollars anyway? Trying to do anything more specific/focused with their network would be a non-starter, and the community is already spreading like wildfire. It's a success without funding. Hurray!

The costs of effective activism are continuing to decrease, and I think the real truth is that there are fewer "full time jobs" in this movement than we'd all like. It would be nice not to have a day job, but I'm a fan of entrepreneurial thinking when it comes to politics. Does anyone need me enough in a full-time capacity to pay it?

I think until an ideologically organized youth (or general) movement (or movement wing) emerges, there will continue to be a lack of funding because both regular people and major funders will fail to see the value and necessity of supporting full-time activism. In the mean time, the work of organizing and building that movement needs to continue without getting hung up on that fact that its mostly volunteer. Maybe this is good. Maybe this encourages decentralization.

In fact, it may end up that the broad movement which is "taking the youth for granted" will end up taking over government (e.g. holding congress and winning the white house in '08), in which case I could see a big expansion of the AmeriCorps family of programs, which would in effect put a lot of community activists on the payroll of the state.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

by Josh Koenig on Thu Dec 28, 2006 at 05:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

Mike, on your concern with the third time fact, I think you are overplaying it to call it a mindset. It is a fact. It is a talking point. It makes a particular point about this next Presidential election which accurately points out how the opportunity is different than in previous elections.

I am not sure who you think has this "mindset" but given that you are using it as the premise for your post it is worth being specific about this.

For advocates of youth voting (I mean specifically people who have been working to increase the attention paid to young voters in the political process for more than the shelf life of the last exit polls) this really is just a fact to help differentiate the opportunity ahead and lure those in the political world in to paying attention to young voters.

It is not the only fact. It is not the only point, but it is a particularly powerful one for those who have doubted the efficacy of investing in young voters.

It points out that we have had two successes and therefor the conventional wisdom that youth don't turn out gets made indirectly.

It points to the notion that this group of voters could be specifically helpful in winning in 2008.

It appeals to the value of long term value through short term investment.

It speaks to the idea that constant sustainable investment leads to long term reward.

For all those reasons it is a good selling point to those people and those institutions that have been skeptical about the worth of investing in the young voter bloc.

No one is disagreeing with the idea that we need to do this long term. And the use of this fact does not preclude the idea that there will future elections will be viewed as 3/3 elections. (In fact, it may help it).

I don't see how this fact undermines anything either. I.e., one of those short cut facts that helps you meet a goal but meets the wrong goal.

The fact remains, this is a 3/3 election. We have not had one of those for a very very long time if ever at this level. Most years are 1/3 years. Occassionally there have been 2/3 years. But really this is different and if that gets more people to the party, great.

Maybe it will even get them to stay. i.e., the happy first time customer approach to building long term customers.

That's all it is, not a mindset. An accurate and effective sales technique for those buyers who have been sitting on the fence for way to long.

Young Voter PAC - Helping Democrats win with young voters

by Young Voter PAC on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:54:28 AM EST

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

I don't think we disagree all that much here. I don't doubt its efficacy as a talking point, and if that's how my post came across, then its poor phrasing on my part.

And I'm not attacking anyone for holding that "mindset." I see this meme taking hold online in the netroots, offline at places like RootsCamp, and in the media. Everyone has their eye on 2008 for this reason - and its great to see - but I just want to keep everyone thinking longterm. You say that it points to the longterm value of short term investment. I guess I just want to make sure that short term investment doesn't end up becoming short-sighted strategy.

I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just trying to get people thinking bigger than door-to-door canvasses around election time. Because 9 times out of 10, planning around incremental bumps in efectiveness won't give you anything particularly new and innovative. You wouldn't necessarily get Drinking Liberally or MFA or Democrats Work out of that line of thinking . . . and these are all programs that do more than just bump up turnout around election time. They increase overall civic participation, sometimes among groups of people who would NEVER canvass a neighborhood or make phone calls.

So to me this seems like a disagreement without a difference. I'm not against the 3/3 talking point. I like it. I've used it in my posts here and on other sites. Many times. But in this one post, I wanted to ask people to think not only about this particular 3/3 elections, but future ones as well. To consider what that longterm plan you are talking about actually looks like.

I'd welcome your thoughts on that.

Mike

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 12:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

I will read your commentary more in-depth later (currently busy ATM), but there was one thing noticeably missing: a clear plan to help reinvigorate the existing Democratic structures for YDA and CDA. I'm a member of the College Democrats at Penn, and you have no idea how hard it is for us to fund ourselves. We get no money from the school, no money from the national organization, and fundraising is difficult for an individual chapter like us to do. What should really be done is to lobby the DNC to make the CDA something more functional than an organization that hosts an annual popularity contest and where politicians pay lip service to a group of individuals that is less than 20% of our entire chapter listserv. I'm not sure if YDA has the same problems, but damn, it pisses me off just how hard it is to do much without resources. The fact that we've been able to host an on-campus rally with Kerry and knocked on tens of thousands of doors for Patrick Murphy (who won his election by 1,500 votes) is a testament to the people we have leading us. But it'd make life a hell of a lot easier if we weren't always on our own.

by PsiFighter37 on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:08:29 PM EST

YDA (none / 0)

YDA is an independent 527 so they don't have the budget constraints that CDA does as a member of the DNC. I feel that YDA has done a considerable amount more to engage youth turnout across the country, and I think most of that is because they can operate on a much larger budget and without the DNC's interference.

I came back to Omaha in 2005, and joined UNO College Democrats. In three short years, an individual chapter at a commuter school in a red state turned into the most active student organization and largest volunteer force in the state. They took Nebraska Young Democrats to the next level, and though we were at odds with the state party, we worked our asses off and earned a seat at the table.

So while I wish the state and national parties would do more to increase youth turnout, I think Young Dems do a hell of a lot better job at it.

Further Reading

by Dave Sund on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

yeah, you're right, that's not in my piece, except for a few vaguely sketched ideas about programs YDA and CDA could adopt that might make them more appealing to the people in their respective age demographics.

That in itself can (andshould) be the topic of a whole other diary.

But you are hitting the nail on the head. Fundraising is difficult for those groups, and they could use the money - for swag, campaign/program materials, throwing parties, etc. Lots of little things that can add up to a cohesive and more effective community.

The other difficulty is the incoherence and total lack of transparency about how these organizations are funded and run. I've read the charters, and its really difficult to get a good handle on how these groups get money, how decisions are made at the national and regional level, adn how it all relates to the individual chapter.

It's one thing - coupled with constantly cycling membership - that makes it hard to reform these organizations.

Leighton Woodhouse tried it with the Young Democrats a year ago, but the Action Caucus movement failed, as far as I can tell. And while they are getting their shit together somewhat technologically, the organization as a whole still seems very uncoordinated, and - at least here in NYC - neither the Brooklyn or Manhattan chapters every offer anything of interest (unless you really, really want to pay $50 to meet those local politicians!).

If people know otherwise and can speak on behalf of those groups - or chapters of those orgs - I'd love to hear more stories about funding and the governance of CDA and YDA. It seems somewhat byzantine and cliqueish, and even the people I know who speak highly of their particular chapter tend to have a low opinion of the national organizations.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

You make many good points, Mike, about the need for more investment in young voters and to harness volunteerism to connect with politics. But you shouldn't dismiss either the practical or the messaging potential of "3/3" elections.

The generational impact of the youth vote years has been well-documented: once a voter forms a party identification, that person is likely to be a loyal voter for life. In the 1980s, the youth vote went heavily for Reagan; today, those same voters are the most Republican part of the electorate. And the inverse is true for those who were young voters during the Roosevelt and Kennedy eras. See "Partisanship is a Habit" at www.youngvoterstrategies.org.

So the point isn't solely that one party or another has "won" the youth vote forever - of course the youth vote is ever-changing. The point, however, is that young voters become older voters who for the next sixty or seventy years will be a permanent part of the electorate whose votes have been (or are beginning to be shaped) during their youth voting years.

This is an extremely strong argument that political parties should pay attention to and invest resources in mobilizing their young voters. You win them now, you have them for life.

by Kat Barr on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:00:10 PM EST

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

Wow. Ok, I guess in my desire to turn a catchy phrase and spark a discussion, it came across that I've got something against the 3/3 argument.

For the record - I don't. As I noted in my reply to the Young Voter PAC commenter - I've used it as a message myself in a number of blogs. I think its a strong talking point, and as I noted in my post, I think its having a strong effect on the way that the media, netroots, and party are looking at young voters. In short, I think its making those institutions place a much higher value in those voters than we've seen in years.

My main point is that I don't want it to prevent us in some way from having a larger discussion about long term strategy for increasing political engagement including and beyond voting. I see that as a potential consequence of the 3/3 talking point - everyone will focus on ways to make short-term gains in 2008 that will "lock up" those 3/3 voters. Then in 2010, we'll do it all again - always looking at the short term, bumping up voting stats, never taking a comprehensive look at what it means to be politically engaged.

For example, take the discussion PsiFighter and I are having about the young and college dems. No one can say with a straight face that these groups are operating optimally, pulling in as many folks as they can and activating them as much as possible. The 3/3 talking point isn't going to solve the problems of these groups. Door-to-door canvassing isn't going to solve the problems of these groups. But a larger discussion about what it means to be involved, how you relate to your community/audience/demographic . . . these discussions could begin the process that will fix those organizations.

I don't doubt the efficacy and importance of the 3/3 talking point, but I want us to be having that larger discussion about political/civic involvement at the same time. This post is an attempt to start that and imagine what such a strategy might consist of.

Admittedly, this post is more random thoughts looking for coherence, searching for a plan (as psifighter requested) and a vision for young voter engagement in progressive politics. It's not a full-formed philosophy or critique at this point.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Youth to Power

by Mike Connery on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:28:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The First of Many Thirds: Engaging the Youth (none / 0)

l1 l2 l3 l4 l5 l6 l7 l8 l9 l10 l11 l12 l13 l14 l15 l16 l17 l18 l19 l20 l21 l22 l23 l24 l25 l26 l27 l28 l29 l30 l31 l32 l33 l34 l35 l36 l37 l38 l39 l40 l41 l42 l43 l44 l45 l46 l47 l48 l49 l50 l51 l52 l53 l54 l55 l56 l57 l58 l59 l60 l61 l62 l63 l64 l65 l66 l67 l68 l69 l70 l71 l72 l73 l74 l75 l76 l77 l78 l79 l80 l81 l82 l83

by bartabe on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 05:56:27 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.