Washington Post

I start this post hoping that most of us can agree that contemporary political discourse is problematic. The oversized egos of television and radio commentators and news personalities, accompanied by the narcissistic and moralistic tone of most politicians, leaves us with lots of posturing and little change.

Michael Gerson, a former speechwriter in the Bush administration and a current columnist in the Washington Post, decided to wade into this topic in his latest piece. Gerson sees discourse breaking down into two parties: the Ugly Party and the Grown-Up Party. In differentiating the two, Gerson rightly attributes all dialogue which wishes death upon people or likens them to a disease to the Ugly Party. For instance, Ann Coulter's lamentation that the terrorists did not also hit the New York Times building, or that Mike Malloy, a radio talk show host, stating that he believed Glenn Beck should blow his brains out. I have no problem with Gerson's scolding here -- we need more of it.

I do have a problem with his alternative, however. Gerson explains the Grown-Up Party:

The alternative to the Ugly Party is the Grown-Up Party -- less edgy and less hip. It is sometimes depicted on the left and on the right as an all-powerful media establishment, stifling creativity, freedom and dissent. The Grown-Up Party, in my experience, is more like a seminar at the Aspen Institute -- presentation by David Broder, responses from E.J. Dionne Jr. and David Brooks -- on the electoral implications of the energy debate. I am more comfortable in this party for a few reasons: because it is more responsible, more reliable and less likely to wish its opponents would die.

Sounds nice, right? My problem is that Gerson's explanation of the Grown-Up Party is too regressive for my taste. If we are trying to engage youth in politics, especially optimistic Millennials, we certainly should be doing what we can to rid the political environment of divisive rhetoric (as well as produce a title less insulting to youth democrats -- little "d"). But we should not be doing it at the expense of access and opportunities for participation.

Gerson's "seminar" places the experts at the center of the discourse suggesting that they should be controlling this country's political discussion, not its citizens. Gerson anticipates this criticism, noting this approach's reputation as "stifling creativity, freedom and dissent." Unfortunately, Gerson does little to soothe these concerns.

While I appreciate Gerson's critique of the status quo and his call for a better political environment, I regret his admitted lack of creativity in constructing an alternative. This Grown Up Party, in throwing the proverbial baby (New Media) out with the proverbial bathwater (an indecent discourse), also squanders opportunities, to use Gerson's language. Today's youth are coming of age with heaps of learned technological experience, and while many online communities have extremists, just like offline communities do, the Internet can be used productively and responsibly and should not simply be dismissed.

I propose a hybrid of Gerson's approach and the status quo. Yes, our culture is poisonous, with dangerous rhetoric flowing into our discourse. The resulting animosity begets more nasty language and leads to personal attacks that immediately shut down productive policy discussion and the free exchange of thoughts and ideas. Instead of attacking New Media, perhaps we educate young adults. Using deliberation in high school classrooms, for example, teaches students civic knowledge, critical thinking, and communication skills. This pedagogy could replace the boring overhead projector and transparencies many of us experienced in social studies courses. Maybe we simultaneously empower young adults, ensuring they understand that politics is not merely a negative, episodic adventure, but an ongoing marathon in which they can easily participate.

Dualistic thinking is dangerous, and employing it in this context threatens our ability to fully capitalize on the opportunities present in our citizenship. We need healthy rhetoric in our political discourse, but we need it to accompany expanded participation in the conversation, not eschew it.

I've not been shy about critiquing those who work in journalism within the Beltway for getting lost in their bubble. Many times these journalists will construct realities or political narratives that don't exist or simply aren't true in the rest of the country.

We should first distinguish between the prognosticators who make the stuff up, and the reporters who objectively report the bullshit.

We have an example of the former today, as David Broder argues that Sarah Palin should be taken seriously. Calling Palin "a public figure at the top of her game -- a politician who knows who she is and how to sell herself," Broder paints Palin as a populist hero, someone capable of leading the romanticized teabaggers to a climactic victory over the oppressive government and Glenn Beck-haters everywhere.

So epic!

Broder might want to revisit populism's root word and his newspaper's polling operation, though. Unfortunately for Palin and Broder, people aren't buying it. Not even the GOP. So says the Washington Post.

Although Palin is a tea party favorite, her potential as a presidential hopeful takes a severe hit in the survey. Fifty-five percent of Americans have unfavorable views of her, while the percentage holding favorable views has dipped to 37, a new low in Post-ABC polling.

There is a growing sense that the former Alaska governor is not qualified to serve as president, with more than seven in 10 Americans now saying she is unqualified, up from 60 percent in a November survey. Even among Republicans, a majority now say Palin lacks the qualifications necessary for the White House.

Palin has lost ground among conservative Republicans, who would be crucial to her hopes if she seeks the party's presidential nomination in 2012. Forty-five percent of conservatives now consider her as qualified for the presidency, down sharply from 66 percent who said so last fall.

Among all Republicans polled, 37 percent now hold a "strongly favorable" opinion of Palin, about half the level recorded when she burst onto the national stage in 2008 as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

Keep in mind this is all after Palin's spike in visibility.

I'm not sure how this developed in Broder's brain, but the evidence is clear -- people (even conservatives) aren't buying into Palin's message. It's unfortunate that Broder continues to be one of the leading voices in Washington punditry.

The Washington Post's Dan Balz waxes poetic on the youth vote problems the GOP faces.

Obama's strength among young voters was a staple of coverage throughout his bid for the White House, although as Keeter pointed out, he could have won in November without the votes of anyone younger than 30. But his margin was the biggest in several decades and that alone should worry Republicans.

Obama may appeal to younger voters, but their shift toward the Democrats predates his candidacy. "This really is not Obama," Keeter said. "Young voters were John Kerry's best age group. They were the Democratic candidates' best age group in the 2006 elections, and they were the best age group for other Democratic candidates in 2008."

Younger voters are more diverse demographically than older voters. In 2008, 62 percent were white, compared with 74 percent eight years earlier. Projections show young voters will become increasingly diverse. They are also less religious and more culturally liberal, two indicators of Democratic support.

GOP strategist Mike Murphy described this in Time magazine as a coming Republican ice age. Republicans will need a major shift to begin to reverse these trends. That could start if there is a backlash against Obama's governance -- and the president's agenda certainly will test the country's tolerance for a big dose of government. But Republicans will need to retool in other ways to make themselves more appealing to a changing population. That debate has barely begun.

This is the message we've been waiting to see from traditional media sources, as many political observers fail to dig deeper and observe the longer political trends of today's youth. Here at FM, we've hammered home the message that this Democratic wave among young people is not due to Obama's popularity. Yes, Obama's approach has pushed things along, but since the oldest Millennials have come of age, we've always seen a clear preference toward the Democratic vision of government.

But more importantly, the Post follows this observation up with another, more vexing one for the Republican Party: it'll need to do more than hope for Obama to fail in order to steal a significant portion of the youth vote. If Millennials preferred the Democratic Party before Obama became the standard-bearer, then the Republicans have a problem larger than Obama that they need to seriously examine.

In a piece on the Washington Post aimed at dispelling (although pathetically) so-called myths post election Chris Cillizza had this as important as the second

A wave of black voters and young people was the key to Obama's victory.

Afraid not. Heading into Election Day, cable news, newspapers and blogs were dominated by excited chatter about record levels of enthusiasm for Obama among two critical groups: African Americans and young voters (aged 18-29). It made sense: Black voters were energized to cast a historic vote for the first African American nominee of either major party; young people -- following a false start with former Vermont governor Howard Dean in 2004 -- had bought into Obama in a major way during the primary season, and they finally seemed on the cusp of realizing their much-promised potential as a powerhouse voting bloc.

Or not. Exit polling suggests that there was no statistically significant increase in voting among either group. Black voters made up 11 percent of the electorate in 2004 and 13 percent in 2008, while young voters comprised 17 percent of all voters in 2004 and 18 percent four years later.

The surge in young and African American voters is not entirely the stuff of myth, however. Although their percentages as a portion of the electorate didn't increase measurably, Obama did seven points better among black voters than Sen. John F. Kerry did in 2004 and scored a 13-point improvement over Kerry's total among young voters.

Well... someone didn't get the memo.... Chris Cillizza, according to the by line at the close of the piece covers the white house. Can I please request of the Washington Post that reporters who are supposed to cover stuff like the White House be well informed before they write pieces in the freaking Washington Post? I don't think this is too much to ask, do you?

For the record: Using Dean in 2004 as a way of dispelling the Obama youth vote is pathetic. Seriously? Come on... seriously?

Secondly, he uses exit polling. Even Paul Begala on election day said he didn't go to the briefing on the exit polls because everyone knows that exit polls are crap. And final numbers are available, so why is it that Mr. Cillizza couldn't find his way to some ACTUAL numbers rather than cherry picking exit polls?

His last point makes me think he needs to get his money back from whatever institution of higher learning gave him his degree. The facts are that Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, and god knows how many other states would not have gone for Obama had it not been for the African American and/or youth communities.

Even James Carville said Indiana and NC were attributed to the youth vote. Similarly, Obama wouldn't have won Iowa without the youth vote, so in a way he might not even have been a candidate had he not won Iowa...

Belittling the youth vote is one thing, calling it a myth based on data that is crated by the Green Fairy is just sloppy journalism. BAD JOURNALIST! No Cookie!

Email Mr. Cillizza here chris.cillizza@washingtonpost.com asking him WTF?

The Washington Post is starting a tracking poll today. Chris Cillizza combed through the first day's results to figure out just how strongly Obama is relying on the youth vote to carry him over the finish line, and found a huge swing - from an 18 point deficit to a 5 point advantage - among white youth over John Kerry's 2004 numbers:

Among all 18-29 year olds, Obama holds a wide 64 percent to 33 percent edge over McCain; among white voters aged 18-29 Obama holds a narrower 51 percent to 46 percent margin.

Compare those numbers to Sen. John Kerry's (Mass.) showing among those same demographic groups four years ago and it become readily apparent how central these voters are to Obama's chances at winning.

Kerry won all voters aged 18-29 by a nine points -- 54 percent to 45 percent -- in 2004; among white voters in that demographic Kerry lost by a whopping 58 percent to 40 percent margin to President George W. Bush.

Obama's numbers are also stratospherically stronger than Kerry's among first-time voters -- most but not all of whom are in that under-30 demographic. Obama take nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of first-time voters while McCain enjoys the support of just 26 percent. Four years ago, the race was much closer as Kerry won first time voters by just seven points -- 53 percent to 46 percent -- over Bush.

An Op-Ed published yesterday in the Washington Post got the youth vote story completely wrong.

In addition to conveniently skipping over the last 7 years in youth organizing (the piece skips from 2000 straight to Iowa 2008), it gets a number of facts wrong and mostly traffics in old stereotypes from the 1990s.

I know that Rock the Vote, which bears the brunt of the author's criticism, is preparing a response, and I'm going to be writing a full response as well that addresses the factual errors and omissions in full. In the interest of timely rapid response, though, I just submitted a letter to the editor.

In the meantime, it looks like WireTap is live with the first response.

An op-ed by Michael Gerson in the Washington Post picks up on the shift in evangelical voters that Zack Exley has been following for months now.

Republicans should take note, because they have growing problems among the post-religious-right generation of evangelicals. An analysis by the Pew Research Center found that 55 percent of white evangelicals ages 18 to 29 identified themselves as Republican in 2001. By 2007, that figure had dropped to 40 percent. This generation is not turning into liberal Democrats -- it is more pro-life, for example, than an older generation of evangelicals -- but it has become more loosely moored to the GOP.

These trends highlight a simple fact: Many evangelicals are center-right voters who respond to a message of social justice and community values, not only to a message of rugged individualism and unrestricted markets. Over the years, religious conservatives have made common cause with movement conservatives within the Republican Party -- but they are not identical to movement conservatives.

That last paragraph is particularly important. We've let the media take away from the Left any claim to speak for religion or people of faith. It's gotten to the point where pollsters don't even ask Democratic voters whether or not they are evangelicals. But there are many intersections between the teachings of the Church and Democratic policies. Messaging around social justice issues and the common good is a strong way to create inroads and alliances with evangelicals - particularly young evangelicals - and work together to bring about positive change we all want to see on the environment, poverty, and a number of issues.

More on how evangelical youth are abandoning Republicans here.

WaPo's Howard Kurtz discovers that YouTube allows amatuers to post videos remixing campaign ads. Brilliant. Can I get his salary?

In YouTube Clips, A Political Edge:

But the YouTube revolution -- which includes dozens of sites such as Google Video, Revver.com and Metacafe.com -- could turn that on its head.

If any teenager can put up a video for or against a candidate, and persuade other people to watch that video, the center of gravity could shift to masses of people with camcorders and passable computer skills. And if people increasingly distrust the mainstream media, they might be more receptive to messages created by ordinary folks.

"YouTube is a campaign game-changer, shifting the dynamics of how to reach voters and build intimate relationships," says Julie Supan, senior marketing director for the small, California-based firm, which by one measure now runs the 39th most popular Web site. "YouTube levels the playing field, allowing well-backed and less-known candidates to reach the same audience and share the same stage."

To his credit, Kurtz gets it - mostly. For some reason, he seems to think that 5,000 or so viewers demonstrates the power of YouTube to shift the dynamics of campaign media. Doesn't realize that the numbers he's throwing out merely pertain to people who have signed into groups? And that potentially tens of thousands might actually be viewing some of these ads?

I guess Howard Kurtz is the only person in the political world who hasn't heard of JibJab.

While we're on this topic, I'll point you to a post Josh made about this development on his personal blog. Where is the line between a healthy media democracy and "flickring idiocy?" Something to chew on.

On a nostalgic note - oh how I wish YouTube had been around when Jason Woliner was making his Partisan Jab videos for MFA.