Democrats

In 2008, after giving Barack Obama a decisive edge in his hard-fought victory over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, members of the Millennial Generation, who are now between 18 and 28 years old, voted for him by an overwhelming 2:1 margin over John McCain (66% vs. 32%). Because they voted so uniformly for Obama, while older generations were almost evenly divided in their presidential voting preferences, Millennials accounted for about 80 percent of the president’s popular vote edge in the November general election. In addition, in both 2006 and 2008, Millennials voted for Democratic congressional candidates by about the same 2:1 margin that they gave the president in his general election victory.

More recently, however, some observers say that Millennial enthusiasm for President Obama, the Democratic Party, and progressive policies has begun to wane and wobble. Unfortunately, most of these observations are based more on personal speculation than on empirical evidence. An early September New York Times article, primarily on the basis of personal interviews with about a half dozen students at one Colorado university, concluded that “The college vote is up for grabs this year—to an extent that would have seemed unlikely two years ago when a generation of young people seemed to swoon over Barack Obama.” A few days later, conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, relying on even less empirical data than the New York Times, crowed that, after the 2008 election, “youngsters seemed like a pot of electoral gold” to liberal columnists such as Harold Meyerson and E.J. Dionne, but now, according to Goldberg, “Obama’s coalition is frayed and frazzled. Independents defected long ago, and young people are heading for the door.” As even a cursory glance at recent polling demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth.

Recent surveys of Millennials conducted in the battleground states of Colorado and Florida for the New Policy Institute (NPI) by market research and consultation firm, Frank N. Magid Associates, tell a far different story about the political loyalties and attitudes of young voters. As the following table indicates, in both states, a majority of Millennials continue to identify as Democrats. The greatest number also calls themselves liberal or progressive, making theirs the first generation since the GI or Greatest Generation to contain more self-perceived liberals than conservatives. In addition, most Millennials hold favorable attitudes toward Barack Obama and the Democratic Party (and unfavorable attitudes toward the Republican Party and Tea Party movement).

These results are corroborated nationally in an early September Pew Research Center survey. That poll gives the Democrats a greater than 2:1 (51% vs. 22%) party ID advantage over the GOP among Millennials. By contrast, the two parties are almost virtually tied in party ID among all older generations (43% Democrat vs. 40% Republican).

Just as important, Millennials hold solidly progressive positions on a range of key issues:

• A solid plurality of them (45%) favors the healthcare reform law passed by Congress and signed by the president in February. An additional 14 percent want to see how the new law works in practice before attempting to change or repeal it. Only 18 percent of Millennials favor repealing it outright. By contrast, older generations are almost evenly divided on this issue (43% supporting the healthcare reform legislation and 35% favoring immediate repeal of the new law).
• Two-thirds of Millennials (67%) oppose modifying the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. In contrast, a majority of those in older generations (51%) favor changing the Constitution for this purpose.
• A plurality of Millennials (34%) would prefer to let all of the Bush 2001 tax cuts to expire. An additional 26% favor letting the tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250 thousand per year, but remain in place for other Americans. Less than one-quarter (23%) believe that all of the tax cuts should be extended. On the other hand, among older Americans, only one-quarter (26%) favor ending of all the tax cuts, while a plurality (30%) want all of them to remain in force. (All of this bodes well for the long-term future of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. Voting behavior research dating back to the 1950s demonstrates that once political identifications and attitudes are formed in early adulthood, they tend to solidify and remain constant for a lifetime. The GI or Greatest Generation was the last American generation that so solidly identified as Democrats and so strikingly supported liberal or progressive policies. That generation underpinned Democratic Party dominance of U.S. politics from the 1930s through the 1960s. The Millennial Generation, along with other key components of the 21st Century Democratic Coalition, has the potential to underpin another era of Democratic and progressive dominance, particularly as the Millennial share of the electorate increases from the 17 percent that it was in 2008, to the 24 percent that it will be when President Obama runs for reelection in 2012, and the 36 percent in will comprise in 2020 when the youngest Millennials become eligible to vote.

All of this suggests that, as in 2008, the Millennial Generation is positioned to be a decisive force this November. If Millennials vote as overwhelmingly Democratic this year as they appear likely to do, they could prove to be the crucial factor in an election that appears to be evenly divided according to the most recent polling.

For that to happen, however, Millennials will have to vote in 2010 at a level proportionate to their contribution to the electorate in 2006 and 2008. Recent polling suggests that is by no means certain. Part of the problem is structural: a June NDN survey indicated that only 60 percent of Millennials, as compared with 83 percent of older generations, were registered to vote.

However, a bigger concern is attitudinal: Millennials, like other components of the Democratic coalition, are not as inspired by or involved in politics as they were in both 2006 and 2008. The June NDN poll indicated that only 44 percent of Millennials in contrast to 64 percent of other generations said they were “absolutely certain” to vote this fall. The numbers were a bit better three months later in both Florida (48%) and Colorado (56%), but they were undoubtedly well below that of older voters in those states. Of greater concern, however, the June NDN survey indicates that only a third of Millennials (33%), as compared to about half of other Americans (47%), placed great importance on the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. In both Colorado (31%) and Florida (32%), as in the nation overall, only a third of Millennials perceived the election to be very important.

Fortunately, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party clearly recognize the crucial importance of the Millennial Generation. The president has scheduled a series of rallies at college campuses across the country, most recently at the University of Wisconsin, to remind Millennials of all that is at stake this fall. The Democratic National Committee has earmarked $50 million to bring Millennials, and other key components of the 21st Century Democratic Coalition, to the polls. The operative question in the 2010 midterm election is whether these efforts will prove to be timely and effective enough to activate the Democratic majority this November.

Left, or right, one thing that every politician- at least rhetorically- can agree upon is that we should improve our schools. America used to have the best primary school system in the world; unfortunately, this is no longer the case. While both sides of the aisle can agree that we should strive to re-capture our status as number one in the world, there is broad disagreement over how to accomplish this large and incredibly important, task.

Much of the debate has focused on issues such as charter schools, school vouchers, teacher performance pay, and standardized tests, but I feel that missing from the debate is the central issue that divides good schools from bad. There are schools in this state where students are not only expected to go to college, but are expected to graduate from high school with extra-curricular activities and numerous AP credits, and there are schools in this state where students aren’t even expected to graduate. Why do we have such disparities? Why do we have so many schools and school systems failing to live up to the promise of free, equitable schooling for the good of our nation? At the crux of it, the answer is money (and I’m not talking about in the schools, but, rather, in the homes).

This is not to suggest that I am against charter schools. In fact, I believe they can play pivotal roles in improving our public school system by serving as incubators for innovation in the classroom. However, they are not an answer in and of themselves. Simply turning public schools into private schools, may benefit certain entrepreneurs, but, unfortunately, will not solve our nation’s education woes. Similarly I think that improving testing standards (particularly to include survey data on things such as student happiness and motivation) can have positive impacts on education and that teacher performance pay is an idea, at least, worth exploring. However, one key variable (that every education study for the past 40 years has demonstrated to be highly correlated to student achievement) is missing from this equation: household income.

Should we continue to fiddle at the edges of reform? Absolutely, improving education is never finished. But, we, as a nation, need to recognize and address the role poverty has on student performance. If a student’s development is stunted by a lack of nutritional health because the parent(s) can’t afford healthy food, this has a negative impact in the classroom. If a parent has to decide between keeping the lights on and going to the doctors office, the stress of this decision will have a negative impact on school performance. If a lack of money causes a mom to leave a child with his alcoholic uncle instead of enrolling him in a pre-school with a positive learning environment, this will have a negative impact on student achievement. If a child has to traverse dangerous streets to go to the library in order to access the internet, instead of going to her bedroom- this will have a negative impact on education outcomes. I could go on, but I think the point is clear: poverty hurts educational development. If we want to see America regain its status as having the best classrooms in the world, we need to focus on reducing poverty.

Before I lay out my vision for addressing poverty, let me add why it is important that our education system improves. This may seem obvious, but beyond education being an end in and of itself, an investment in education is an investment in our nation’s future. This is particularly true as our nation has moved away from a natural resource dependent (i.e., manufacturing) economy and toward a human capital (i.e., service industry) economy. If we have a more educated workforce, we will have a stronger economy.

So, what is the best way to address poverty (thus, ensuring a more educated populace and stronger economy)? In my estimation, there are two main ways. One is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. This makes each paycheck more valuable by adding additional value through an annual tax refund. To expand it, we can increase the means test and raise the credit limit. Second, we can invest in holistic community development programs that aim to increase the health of entire communities. President Obama deserves plaudits for beginning down this road with his Promise Neighborhoods initiative; however, a few million dollars is not nearly enough to uplift every impoverished community in America. If we are to truly address poverty, we need to be willing to take bold steps. Thirdly, I would like to add that there are myriad other ways to address poverty and I would encourage input on the subject from experts and interested parties from all sides of the political spectrum, but that first we- as a society- have to agree that, to address our faltering education system, we need to invest in poverty alleviation.

I feel obligated to point out that following my recommendations (particularly regarding increasing and expanding the EITC) would likely result in significant positive effects for our economy. Getting more money into the hands of our most needy citizens has a multiplying effect. Because poor people spend higher percentages of their incomes, such a policy initiative would have a stimulatory effect on economic growth.

There will be those that say such a task is too big and too impractical. Other may say that only a naive idealist would suggest such an outlandish step to improve our school system. They may suggest that if we just abolished teachers unions, or we just ended standardized testing, or we just made this small tweak here, or that one there, that everything would come together, our school systems would improve, and all would be right in the world of education. Personally, I think short-sighted approaches to education reform show true naivety. I care too much about this country’s economic health, and too much about equal opportunity, to watch another generation of kids raised without the opportunity to gain a quality education. My personal philosophy of governance is that every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. To turn this vision into reality, let’s end poverty.

Andrew Gall
Democratic Candidate for Congress (MD-05)
www.andrewforcongress.org

Michael Swartz, a writer for the Baltimore Examiner, recently wrote up a response to my offer to drop out the race if Hoyer pushes H.R. 1826 (Fair Elections Now) through the House of Representatives, in which he argued that money in politics isn’t a problem and that I’m not a principled voter. I strongly disagree with Mr. Swartz first assertion and take exception to his second one.

MONEY & POLITICS: In his article, Mr. Swartz stated that “Money in politics is not the problem.” Well Mr. Swartz, I reckon we have stumbled upon a fundamental philosophical divide. You see, there’s an old saying around these parts that goes something like this: follow the money. The reasoning behind this is rather elementary. I think we can both agree that politicians want to be re-elected. The rarity of politically courage and the incredibly high rates of re-election speak to this truth. So how do politicians get re-elected? Through political campaigns of course. And how are political campaigns won and lost? Well political campaigns can be lost many ways- from a speaking gaff (à la George Allen) to a poorly designed strategy (e.g., Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign), but they are generally won by creating a good organization, effective advertising, and voter outreach- all of which take money. Consequently, politicians do as much as they can to boost their campaign treasuries. Because we have a system of privately financed elections, this means politicians must appeal to deep-pocketed political donors. Who are big political donors? Well, generally they fall into two categories: rich people and vested interests. The result of this is that rich people have more sway in our democracy than poor people. This goes against the fundamental purpose of democracy- where every person is entitled to an equal say in governance. This skewing of power is also replicated in the second category of vested interests. Because large corporations and industrial alliances have more money than small businesses and emerging industries, the balance of political power is tilted toward the former. This bias is then translated into a skewing of the free market system towards large entrenched interests and away from small businesses and start-up companies. In other words, our economy gets tilted toward propping up existing (and in some cases dying) industries and away from nurturing new businesses that drive economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Swartz is a self-professed right-winger, and right-wingers generally pay homage to the rhetoric of free-markets. If he truly believes in a free market economy, where we don’t have special tax loopholes and giveaways from politicians to their corporate interest donors, then he would support Fair Elections Now. However, perhaps Mr. Swartz, like many Republicans, is more concerned with propping up and serving the rich than he is with actual economic growth and truly free markets.

PRINCPLED VOTER: Mr. Swartz, I take no offence at your analogy of going all in with a “trey- deuce” (in fact I found in rather amusing). After all, I am told I can’t win on a daily basis. But I’m not running because I think the odds are in my favor. I’m running because my principles and values tell me that it important to stand up and try my best to hold Hoyer accountable for him immoral vote to invade Iraq, to stand up and hold Hoyer accountable for his writing into law that telecommunications companies can skip going to trial for breaking the law (a decision which goes against the fundamental American principle of equal justice), and to try and push forward the idea of free and fair elections so that our politics aren’t dominated by a small wealthy elite, but rather are governed by we the people.

It is my principles and my values that guide everything I do professionally, so I do take umbrage with this statement:

Blind ideology will come before principle, so I'm betting Andrew will get with the program and do as he's told like a good liberal Democrat by voting the party line.

Mr. Swartz, if I do vote for Hoyer this fall, it will because I believe our country will be better off with him in the House than with his opponents’ in there. Mr. Swartz, it is my principles that guide my decisions- not blind ideology. If you looked at what I have done and thought about what I am doing, I am confident you would see that.

It was my principled belief of serving the poor- to make life a little bit better for those that need the most help- that led me to serve our country in AmeriCorps VISTA. This principle can also be seen in my guiding philosophy of governance: every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. It was my principled belief that Barack Obama would make the best president that caused me to give up a year of my life to work for his campaign. While I’m confident you would disagree with this assessment, you should be able to see that it was not blind ideology, but a principled and deliberative decision. After all, if I was a blind ideology guy, I would have signed up with the Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. Most clearly of all, it is principles and values that lead me to my current state as underdog challenger to Majority Leader Hoyer. My principles and values say not to support someone that will vote to send our military off to die without just cause, that will turn his back to the fundamental American principle of equal justice, and that won’t work to reign in the power of special interests in our government. It is my principles and values that push me not wait for someone to fill the void, but to rather take action myself and stand up for that which I believe.

So Mr. Swartz, am I “young and idealistic”? Yes, you are correct about that. Am I ever going to put “blind ideology” before principle? No, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mr. Swartz, challenge my experience, challenge my intelligence, but don’t challenge my principles because I am as principled a candidate for office as you will ever see.

As I travel around the 5th District, knocking on doors, and introducing myself to voters, the first question people generally ask is why I am running. I often talk about public policy and the state of our nation, but I’ve come to realize that what they really want to know is my story- the events in my life that led me to take such a decisive step. Unfortunately this is tough to sum up an elevator length talk, so I’ve decided to write my story out so everybody can understand where I am coming from and what motivates me to run. Here is part 3 of 3:

Since announcing, I have received incredible encouragement from a wide range of people; nonetheless, I have encountered naysayers as well, whose basic argument seems to come down to- you shouldn’t run for Congress yet. Well, I’m a believer in the idea that procrastination is the grave in which opportunity is buried in. Moreover, if we do not speak out for what we believe in, our silence gives voice to that which we oppose. For example I can not in good conscience stay silent when our congressman votes for an unnecessary war in Iraq. I can not stay silent when our congressman writes legislation that allows companies that spied on American citizens to skip the justice system and be granted immunity to crimes without ever facing judge or jury. I can not stay silent as our government is bought and sold by powerful lobbying interests at the expense of everyday Americans.

Others may choose to delay to act in spite of these realities, but I have too much evidence that procrastination today can lead down the path to never going to happen. In my life, I have known far too many people that have been struck by untimely death. Last summer, I worked as a community organizer with Working America when death struck again. I worked closely with Shalico every day until she died of a heart attack at the age of 32. While she may not have been the pinnacle of health, she exercised every single day and didn’t do drugs; there were no signs that this was going to happen. Perhaps it was because I was a little bit older, or because I had seen her just the day before, or because her death seemed less controllable than a car accident, or getting shot, or hit by a train, but Shalico’s death was more of a shock to me than the others with which I have been forced to cope. It made me take stock of my own life and made me hungry to meet my professional goal of sustained positive change.

Shalico’s death helped re-spark that fierce urgency of now of which President Obama and Dr. King so forcefully spoke. I can not sit idly by while deployed soldiers lose their homes over $800 debts. I can not sit idly by while the gap between black and white grows obscenely large. I can not sit idly by and watch the American Dream of meritocracy get tossed aside for permanent upper and lower classes. I am running for Congress because I feel the fierce urgency of now to take back America from the plutocrats that hold up entrenched powers at the expense of the powerless by buying off our politicians. American democracy should not be for sale! We need public financing of elections to restore power to the public. I am running for Congress today because Marylanders- and Americans at large- need someone to fight against the corporate takeover of our democracy.

As I travel around the 5th District, knocking on doors, and introducing myself to voters, the first question people generally ask is why I am running. I often talk about public policy and the state of our nation, but I’ve come to realize that what they really want to know is my story- the events in my life that led me to take such a decisive step. Unfortunately this is tough to sum up an elevator length talk, so I’ve decided to write my story out so everybody can understand where I am coming from and what motivates me to run. Here is part 2 of 3:

After teaching English as a Second Language, I took the next step toward my vision of creating positive change through systemic fixes by working on affordable housing issues for local government. Subsequent to my year of service in AmeriCorps VISTA, I was more committed to creating change to help my country than ever before, and, consequently, I joined the Obama campaign.

Working on the Obama campaign was a transformative experience. While there were some magnificent large events such as the national convention in Mile High Stadium and the opportunity to shake hands with the future president and first lady of the United States, it was definitely the small moments with my volunteers that stick out the most- the 80 year old grandmothers that went out door-knocking daily, the middle-schooler who came in and made calls everyday after school, the countless other volunteers that demonstrated an unbelievable spirit of generosity. This spirit of generosity that I witnessed everyday on the campaign spoke to the richness of the American ideal when we come together to work for a more perfect union.

It was one of these smaller moments- a moment with one of America’s many unsung heroes- that led me to challenge Hoyer more than any of the larger, more historic moments. When I was going door-to-door in Iowa, the mother of an 18 year old who just signed up for service and was about to get shipped off to Iraq opened up and invited me inside to meet him. After I shook hands with Matt and thanked him for his service, she broke down while explaining to me that she was voting for Obama because she believed he, more than the others, would get us out of Iraq. She explained that her son had signed up without telling her and that he was the most important thing in the world to her. Matt stood awkwardly with his head down. She asked me to promise her that Obama would get our troops out of Iraq. I told her that I couldn’t promise something that was out of my control, but that Obama was the only major candidate to object to the war, and that, as such, I believed he would do everything in his power to get us out of there as quickly and safely as possible. I still struggle with my emotions as I look back and think about that cold December evening standing in the kitchen with Matt and his mom as she struggled with the dichotomy of pride in her son’s courage and service and anger with this unnecessary war. It was an anger that I shared. It is an anger that I continue to carry with me. I know that for much of America, Iraq is an abstract concept that has receded from the national conscience, but there are Americans that continue to fight and die in Iraq today. There are thousands of friends and families that must wake up every day knowing that someone they love is no longer here because politicians like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer capitulated to the Bush administration’s desires for an unnecessary war. There are thousands more that must live with the physical and emotional scars of war because politicians such as Steny Hoyer didn’t have the backbone to stand up for what was right. They didn’t have the backbone to stand up and say that we shouldn’t be rushing to war, that we shouldn’t send men and women off to die in a foreign land unless we are one-hundred percent certain that we will be attacked if we don’t act. There was no such certainty with Iraq- yet Hoyer didn’t have the spine to stand up for this country and its servicemen and women. No, instead he voted to send young men like Matt off to fight in a country we had no business in. Well after facing Matt’s mom, I can assure you that I will never vote to send our country to war without just cause.

As I travel around the 5th District, knocking on doors, and introducing myself to voters, the first question people generally ask is why I am running. I often talk about public policy and the state of our nation, but I’ve come to realize that what they really want to know is my story- the events in my life that led me to take such a decisive step. Unfortunately this is tough to sum up an elevator length talk, so I’ve decided to write my story out so everybody can understand where I am coming from and what motivates me to run. Here is part 1 of 3:

I put great weight on learning from example, and have consciously sought out heroes to guide me forward on a path that will lead me to a desired endpoint. Such guide posts come from luminaries such as Reverend King and Mahatma Gandhi. But the largest inspiration- my daily, tangible inspiration was definitely my mother. My mom has- for more than 30 years- run a non-profit service agency that focuses on providing alternative opportunities for at-risk youth. I want to carry out her vision to the next level. The overarching philosophy of governance that will guide me in my deliberative process is that every child, regardless of the circumstance they are born into, should have as close to an equal chance to succeed in life as possible. This is the philosophy that my mother helped turn into reality for thousands of at-risk young people at the micro-level, and this is the philosophy that I seek to come true for millions at the macro-level.

While in college, I more closely hewed to my mother’s example and provided direct services to kids. Every Saturday morning I would wake up bright and early to supervise a program that brought inner-city students to college and provided them with an additional day of instruction, in an effort to help them catch up to their more affluent peers. While I am proud of the work I did to help these 4th-6th grade students, it simultaneously demonstrated to me that our country’s gaping inequities can’t be overcome through the hard work of a single teacher or after-school program, but need to be addressed systemically through public policy.

I’ve been struck by the wave of austerity capturing not only American politics but politics across the globe. Not only has the Senate failed to pass an extension of unemployment benefits and aid to states, the post-mortem G8/G20 headlines were that the world’s leaders would primarily be focused on deficit/debt reduction as opposed to additional large overtures to stimulate the economy.

Deficit hawks or Austerians seem to be winning the day! Don’t get me wrong, deficits and the debt does matter. But the preoccupation with the deficit now is ill placed. Paul Krugman in the NYTimes warns of a Third Depression. The Times also runs a piece detailing the effects of “belt tightening” in Ireland. The key graphs are below…

As Europe’s major economies focus on belt-tightening, they are following the path of Ireland. But the once thriving nation is struggling, with no sign of a rapid turnaround in sight.

Nearly two years ago, an economic collapse forced Ireland to cut public spending and raise taxes, the type of austerity measures that financial markets are now pressing on most advanced industrial nations.

There’s very little to possibly lose from additional government spending. But if governments turn their attention away from reviving the still fragile economy the consequences could be disastrous. Democrats and Congress can’t get weak knees now.

This all could have tremendous generational impacts. Recent college graduates entering the job market now in the midst of recession will earn less than graduates who enter the job market in better economic times. And consider that young workers are beset with new and challenging problems. Student debt, declining wages, widening inequality, rising costs etc. etc. etc.

The most recent jobs would have had an only marginal impact on the deficit. It just doesn’t make any sense for Democrats to get timid now when it comes to the economy. Debates over the debt and deficit are often made with future generations in mind. All of this profligate spending now jeopardizes the standard of living of future generation, the meme goes. Well, I’m sure young people appreciate that concern. But what young people really need right now is for the Congress to focus on creating jobs and stimulating growth, so that young people will actually have an economic future worth looking to.

DemfromCT over at DailyKos has an interesting interview with Ruy Teixeira, an expert on political demographics and a Senior Fellow at both The Century Foundation and Center for American Progress and author of the recently published working paper titled, Demographic Change and the Future of the Parties.

While you should go check it out in its entirety, here are the main points, which should be very familiar to faithful Future Majority readers.

• The Republican base is shrinking. The white, working class vote, a demographic that you hear all the "smart" television personalities talk about, is vanishing before our eyes, notes Teixeira. We heard a lot about this particular voting bloc in the 2008 Democratic primary, especially in the Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi contests. Yet, those states, like everywhere else, are seeing the size of this group diminish.
  

  In Texas, the white working class share is down 17 points, with minorities up 9 points and white college graduates up 7 points. In Ohio the share of white working-class voters fell by 15 points between 1988 and 2008 while white college graduates rose by 8 points and minorities by 6 points. Even a state like Mississippi has seen a huge drop in the white working class vote since 1988 (down 21 points).

• Millennials continue to decidedly identify with the Democratic Party. Though we continue to battle the "conventional wisdom" that youth always become more conservative with time, Teixeria corrects this, pointing to multiple studies that show partisan loyalty increases with age. And why would Millennials be attracted to the GOP anyway? In supporting the oppressive Arizona immigration law, continuing to treat gay people as if they are not human, and acting as if government has no redeeming value, it is almost as if the Republican Party is running away from our generation (you know, like Mark Kirk).
• To continue to build a long-term political advantage while championing good policy, the Democrats need to provide an alternative to Arizona's SB 1070, getting behind comprehensive immigration reform. Polling shows that the Arizona legislation is popular, but so is a description of a fairer comprehensive reform, in which the federal government strengthens border security and investigates employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. These undocumented workers currently living in the United States would be required to register with the federal government, have criminal background checks, pay taxes, learn English, and go to the back of the line for U.S. citizenship (84 percent of those supporting the Arizona law support this alternative). For the Democrats to put forth a strong alternative to the GOP-backed position, they would be strengthening their attachments with already friendly Latino voters, and they also would be enhancing their stature as a party that can solve our larger problems.

The writing is on the wall. Despite the gloomy outlook for the midterms at this point, there are quite a few promising long-term trends for the party. Yet, in order for these to mean anything, we must go all out, institutionalizing peer-to-peer registration efforts. Luckily the DNC recently unleashed their voter registration strategy for the midterms, which significantly targets young voters and minority voters, a large chunk of the President's and the Democrats' base.

And while we face some short-term stress in 2010 while looking at some friendly long-term trends, the GOP is in the opposite situation. While the Tea Party continues to drum up conservative resistance to Obama and the Democrats (occasionally attracting attention for racist behavior), they are moving in the wrong direction of where they need to be to have any influence on the Millennial vote in the long-term. With Millennials forming about 40 percent of the electorate (and 44 percent of the generation identifying as a minority) in 2020, they form the anchor of this country's electoral future; meanwhile, the GOP can't seem to break away from the Tea Party, which actively resists a move toward the center.

For further reading, check out Teixeira's white paper (linked above) and read the reviews by Tom Schaller for FiveThirtyEight.com and Ed Kilgore at the Democratic Strategist.

I referred to it this past weekend, but I wanted to be sure I clarified a portion of Kentucky Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul's episode given Sarah Palin's recent defense of Paul.

Palin was trying to make the case, like she did after her horrible interview with CBS's Katie Couric, that the media is out to get candidates, looking for "gotcha" moments. Thus, according to Palin, Rachel Maddow conspired to get Rand Paul to flip-flop all over the place in his appearance on her show last week, which set this debacle into action.

Yet, Frank Rich notes this is a fallacy. Again and again, long after its passing, Paul is on record as saying he is not behind the Civil Rights Act:

With Rand Paul, we also get further evidence of race’s role in a movement whose growth precisely parallels the ascent of America’s first African-American president. The usual Tea Party apologists are saying that it was merely a gaffe — and a liberal media trap — when Paul on Wednesday refused to tell Rachel Maddow of MSNBC that he could fully support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But Paul has expressed similar sentiments repeatedly, at least as far back as 2002.

The more the Democrats can use Paul to represent what the GOP is increasingly representing in American politics -- the idea that no government is better than any government -- the better shot they have at avoiding a major beating at the polls come November, especially if Democrats are successful in mobilizing pro-government Millennials. This is why people like Fox analyst and ex-Bush adviser Karl Rove phoned Paul at the end of last week begging him to cancel his scheduled appearance on Meet the Press.

Video from this weekend in New Orleans. Lilly Ledbetter speaks to the Young Democrats of America.

See more fo the rest of the video.