Hillary Clinton

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.

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.

Yesterday we made history in this country. The first african american nominee of a major party. Sorry I haven't posted much on it yet, but I'm waiting on final stats about the youth vote in this process before I put out my final thoughts. In the meantime, Joe has an excellent message for Hillary Clinton and her supporters, and if you missed it last night, you owe it to yourself to watch Obama's speech.

As we wind down the primary season, there is less and less reliable data about youth turnout and pretty much no comparative data from previous cycles. It's been a long time since we've come this far into the process.

Nevertheless, here's what we do know from CIRCLE and CNN exit polling:

I'll note that while there is no comparative data, the youth "share of the electorate" in both states is higher than the 2004 average of 9%.

Clinton won the youth vote handily in Kentucky, pulling in 54% of the 18 - 29 vote to Obama's 41%. 2% were "uncommitted." She won even greater margins among white youth.

Obama won the youth vote handily in Oregon, pulling in 71% to Clinton's 29%. He won by the same margin among white youth.

Political junkie that I am, I cannot wait for this thing to be over. Just a few more weeks . . .

So how much is the youth vote worth this year? Apparently $500,000 a pop if you are a superdelegate.

The Huffington Post is running a shocker of a piece claiming that Clinton donor Haim Saban offered the Young Democrats of America access to $1 million in funds if their two remaining superdelegates - David Hardt and Crystal Strait - endorsed Sen. Clinton:

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

YDA isn't answering anymore questions about this incident on the record, but if this is true, all I can say is "good for the Young Democrats!" for turning the offer down. At a time when Sen. Obama's campaign is threatening to defund 527 organizations (YDA is a 527), and many progressive youth organizations still struggle to raise their yearly budgets, YDA's leadership, this could not have been an easy choice for YDA leaders. $1 million is a substantial portion of YDA's yearly budget. This was the ultimate Faustian bargain dangled in front of them and they turned it down. They made the ethical choice to forgo what might be best for themselves politically and faithfully represent the will of their constituents in the nominating process.

It was even braver considering the potential fallout from other donors close to Saban:

Members of the Young Democrats agonized about the potential fallout of Saban's call; his financial offer represented one-third of the group's 2008 budget. Democratic officials and fundraisers were consulted about how to respond, and at times the discussions were "emotional," one participant said. "It is scary for them, Haim is very powerful, he has great influence over donors who give to them."

Another source said that Hardt and others were acutely aware of Saban's status within Democratic circles and were concerned that their organization would suffer long-term harm if they declined his offer or if news of the proposal became public.

It's a rather unfortunate dynamic in progressive politics that such donors have so much influence over the process, but that's how it works. Usually it's not even accurate to talk of donors, but rather "donor networks." If you piss-off the wrong donor, their network can be closed to you forever. So it was a gutsy move for YDA to snub a major donor like that. But I'm convinced it was the right move. Taking that money would have been disastrous for YDA in a number of ways -- not least in that endorsing Sen. Clinton over Obama would put the YDA leadership totally out of touch from the will of the surging youth vote, the very people they are supposed to represent. In terms of organizational branding and PR, it would most likely be taken as indicative of an organizational culture in which the leadership worked to protect and further their own political advancement at the expense of the membership. If YDA had taken the deal, those observations would have been right. Kudos to them for doing the right thing.

So where do YDA endorsements stand? Last week, Crystal Strait endorsed Sen. Obama. Her counterpart, Francisco Domenech, endorsed Clinton months ago. David Hardt, the President of YDA, and the person to whom the offer was allegedly made, has yet to endorse a candidate. Last week he released a statement indicating that he would wait until all votes were cast before making his endorsement.

By the by, this is yet another reason why I think my arguments for more transparency, and some basic guidelines, in how YDA and CDA superdelegates cast their ballots are called for and indeed long overdue.

So there were some elections yesterday (the madness never stops), and I figure we should at least mention them here.

In West Virginia, Sen. Clinton won in a landslide (as predicted). She defeated Obama 67 - 26%, and she even captured young voters who chose her 59 - 35%. I haven't checked, but I believe this is only the third state in which Clinton won the 18 - 29 demographic. Young voters were 14% of the Democratic electorate. Unfortunately, there is no data from previous cycles against which to compare that, however, based on averages, it is likely that young voters increased their share over previous cycle.

In a race that saw major coverage in the netroots, Scott Kleeb won his primary agains uber-DINO (Democrat in Name Only) against Tony Raimondo. Scott will now compete for the seat vacated by Chuck Hagel in November. This was a good win for Democrats and for young voters. Scott is a huge friend of the youth organizing community and many of you are probably familiar with his wife, Jane Fleming Kleeb, who is an all around youth-organizing rock star and blogs here at Future Majority occasionally under the name of her organization, the Young Voter PAC. Jane blogged the race all day yesterday and you can read her dispatches here.

Finally, we also won a long-shot race in Mississipi. In a deep-red distrinct, Travis Childers defeated his Republican opponent Greg Davis. This was the third special election in a row in which a Democrat defeated a Republican in a red district, and it's an indication of just how big a wave we might see in November. It's also another reason why we need to maximize the youth vote in every state. If victories like this are possible in the deepest or red districts, 50 million Millennials can help make this one of the biggest landslides we're likely to see in our lifetime.

For more, don't miss Joe's take on yesterday's elections and what it all means:

Joe's got a great video up about Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" - in which he (Rush) encourages Republicans to eff with the Democratic primaries. He also has a good summation of the point I made earlier today about the supposed "race divide" between the Democratic candidates and how that plays out at the generational level.

Well my pre-game analysis was off. Banking on a smaller youth electorate and possible voter suppression at the polls, I predicted that Indiana would have a smaller youth turnout than North Carolina and that Clinton could potentially overtake Obama among some youth demographics (whites, 25 - 29). That turned out to be false.

Whichever way you slice it - share of the electorate or turnout - young voters played a bigger role in Indiana than they did in North Carolina yesterday. Young Hoosiers made up 17% of the total electorate, and, according to the Washington Post, outperformed voters over 65. CIRCLE lowballs the overall youth turnout at about 20%. (That number is a lowball because a lack of exit polling on the Republican side makes it impossible for them to accurately gauge youth turnout in the GOP contest. Without that data, their measurements for overall youth turnout can only come from the Dem side leaving tens to hundreds of thousands of young voters out of the equation).

In North Carolina, young Tarheels made up a smaller 14% of the overall electorate and turned out at a rate of 15% (again, a lowball estimate). In both states, Senator Obama continued to dominate the youthvote, pulling in a 49% margin in North Carolina and a 24% margin in Indiana.

With regard to share of the electorate, young voters in both states underperformed their share of the population (20% in Indiana and 21% in North Carolina), however the overall share likely rose considerably from 2000 and 2004. There are no exit polls from those cycles against which to compare data, but the average youth share of the electorate in 2004 was 9%. Going by that indicator, young voters' increased their share by ~5% in NC and 8% in Indiana. Not shabby.

According to reports, there was some voter suppression in Indiana, particularly among students attending private universities, however the numbers may be lower than anticipated. Groups like the Student PIRGs are still working on the issue and I'll post updates if/when I get them.

Most interesting to me was the racial breakdown of the youth vote in both states. In North Carolina, Sen. Clinton killed Sen. Obama among white voters overall, but she lot to Obama among White voters aged 17 - 29 57 - 41%. The results were similar in Indiana. Obama lost white voters overall, but won young white voters 55 - 45%. This was a reversal of the results in Pennsylvania, where Sen. Obama lost the white youth vote to Sen. Clinton 52 - 48%.

People say that Obama's "post racial" message is a fantasy when one looks at how the demographics break down, but that is a misinterpretation. Obama is not going to change the racial views and habits of older voters. No candidate could do that. Such change takes time. It is the work of generational shifts. That post-racial message is most apparent among younger voters, who display far less polarization on the issue and are far more likely to cross racial lines in casting their ballots.

The Washington Post ran a story yesterday analyzing the campaigning of Chelsea Clinton on behalf of her mother: Too Solemn for Her Generation?

The article focuses mainly on Chelsea's mannerisms on the trail and the degree to which she seems culturally (dis)connected to young voters. It's an at times interesting, at times superficial, look at a young women on the campaign trail. By far, I found this to be the most interesting graf:

Chelsea, he added, doesn't consider herself an ambassador of her generation, though the campaign does believe she connects well with young people. Her appeal "is less specific to her peers than to people in their 60s and 40s -- people who are parents and grandparents, and they find her remarkable. . . . They know how hard it is to raise children. When they see someone who conducts themselves so well, they identify with the senator and former president."

I think this observation is in part correct, but I also think that the disconnect is more than Chelsea's appeal to older voters rather than her peers or slightly younger contemporaries. The problem is that Chelsea is being used (or rather lending her support) in a capacity that is ultimately very disempowering. She is essentially a figurehead at these events. A spokesperson. An icon. Chelsea is leading a one-way dialogue that is passive on the part of Clinton supporters. She is standing behind the megaphone delivering a message.

By contrast, when I think of the Obama youth campaign, no single figure pops into my head. The image is one of a sea of young people at the polls and at mega-rallies. It is very much more a participatory image and a group effort - characteristics prized by Millennials. It's a two-way, social relationship. A partnership really.

More than any personal tic or mannerism evident in her dress or speech, this fundamental difference in how the campaigns are addressing young supporters strikes me as the greatest example of a cultural disconnect between the two campaign's youth programs.

• Anastasia Goodstein notes an interesting divide among social network users - those who replicate their offline social networks online, and those who use social networks to expand beyond their geographic communities into more niche, culturally based communities. Definitely worth thinking about if you're an online organizer. - Ypulse
• Project Vote notes that the VA is keeping wounded veterans off the voter roles. - Open Left
• John Ashcroft gets pwned by a college student on the question of waterboarding. - FireDogLake
• Alan Rosenblatt gets an up close look at MTV's Street Team '08 and declares the channel "still on the cutting edge" when it comes to political news We tend to agree, MTV has done impressive work so far this cycle. -TechPresident
• The Harvard IOP survey is getting more media play today. Check out write-ups in the Seattle PI, Boston Globe, and a blog post by IOP Director John Della Volpe.
• I haven't stopped by in a while, but looks like HillBlazers, the Clinton youth website, is a little more robust these days. So is her whole internet presence, argues Xavier Lopez-Ayaia. -TechPresident