The Candidate Can't Do It Alone - And He Shouldn't

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.