2008 Elections

It’s an Olympic year, so there’s a lot of torch-passing going around these days. But it’s also a watershed year in which the torch is being passed, once again, to a new generation.

Two years ago, when I ran for State Senate and won, I watched a wave of young progressives sweeping across the nation. I was not just watching history happen, I was part of it with all of you.

This year, however, is proving that 2006 was just a prelude to a national movement, a generational shift that makes our nation’s hope for the future incredibly bright. And once again, I’m honored to be a part of history as it happens. This wouldn't be a pivotal year without your work and your involvement, and I wouldn't be here without the support of young people in Oklahoma.

I’m running for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma in part because I’m inspired by these times. A new group of people who have grown up believing that government can be a force for good in people’s lives are working to make sure that it fulfills that mission. We’re changing our nation from the inside out, from the state house to Washington. And the need for well-qualified and hopeful people to serve in the public sphere has never been greater.

We have to shape our own future. If we want to have Medicare and Social Security available when we retire, we must protect it now. If we want to have clean air for our children and energy sources to fill the void left when oil supplies shrink, we must fight for renewable and clean alternatives now. If we want to have quality and affordable health care available for when we, or our children, get sick, we must change the health care system now.

When I’m in the U.S. Senate, I’ll be fighting for all of these issues, as well as protecting our troops and our veterans, keeping our nation’s security strong, spending our tax dollars responsibly, and ensuring a quality education for every child. My opponent, incumbent Sen. Jim Inhofe, has proven to be out of touch with his constituents on these subjects. Being a voice for the people you represent is the basic job of any legislator, and he’s failing to do even that.

I appreciate the opportunity to come on Future Majority and discuss the issues you care about, as well as my U.S. Senate campaign. If you want to find out more about me and about this race, please look at my website, www.andrewforoklahoma.com . I’ll be happy to take your questions below.

Update: Cyrstal Strait called me to stress that she has not, in fact pledged her vote to Clinton but is still weighing both of the candidates.
--------------------------

Yesterday I wrote about Super Delegates Under 36. Now I want to focus more concretely on those who are Super Delegates by virtue of their role as leaders within the Young Democrats of America and the College Democrats of America. Specifically, these are:

We're in a fairly unique situation right now. We are in the middle of the most closely contested primary contest in decades. Young voters are turning out in record numbers and their importance in this race is widely recognized in the media, the political class, and the general public. With the focus turning away from the popular voting in the states and towards the roll of Super Delegates in the nominating process, it's imperative that the Super Delegates representing the youth community cast their vote in such a way that it empowers and enfranchises the organizations they lead and the young voters they represent.

In the last few days, I've either had a conversation or exchanged emails with four of these five Super Delegates (the exception being David Hardt), asking them a few basic questions:

1. Have you declared support for a candidate?
2. What is your criteria for deciding your vote?
3. Would you consider a number of alternative criteria (described below)?

The delegates with whom I spoke were cagey about declaring their support, for a variety of reasons. Most significantly, it is the policy of both the College Democrats and the Young Democrats that the organization and the leadership stay neutral during a presidential primary. Many of them seemed uncomfortable with the position in which they found themselves, and expressed a belief and/or a desire to see the nomination wrap up in such a way that their vote at the convention would not be a deciding factor.

(The exception to this was Francisco Domenech, one of YDA's elected representatives to the DNC. Domenech declared his support for Hillary Clinton in December. Crystal Strait would not declare support for a candidate during our conversation, but the youth rumor mill has it that she will likely cast her ballot for Clinton, which is why I have marked her status as "uncertain" in my chart.)

At this point it is unrealistic to think that the nomination can be resolved in such a way that "their vote won't matter." Super Delegates are under enormous scrutiny right now, and news outlets are reporting that it is mathematically impossible for Clinton or Obama to carry the nomination without the support of super delegates. How they vote does matter and it will be scrutinized, no matter what the outcome. As such, the criteria by which they make that decision also matters a great deal.

In the short term, the delegates themselves - and the organizations they represent - will need to account for those votes. In the long term it matters because it will set a precedent. Whether they wish it or not, the criteria by which these five delegates cast their ballot will reflect (well or poorly) on their organization, and it will in part determine how future YDA and CDA super delegates cast their ballots. As such, these delegates need to think carefully about what will build the most power for their organization and their constituency, as well as what it means to be an elected representative of young voters on the DNC.

When I pressed the delegates for their potential (or determined) criteria, I was met with the following responses:

1. Domenech offered three criteria: what the candidate meant politically for the youth vote (resources expanded in campaigning, etc.), the candidate's issue positions, and what the candidate meant for Latinos in general and Puerto Rico in particular.
2. Another delegate stated that they would vote for the candidate most likely to pass policy proposals beneficial to students.
3. A third expressed a desire to use their position as a super delegate to leverage promises from the campaigns about young voter outreach and representation at the DNC and pick the canididate making the most/best promises

I do not believe that any of these criteria should be used in determining how YDA and CDA super delegates cast their ballot for three reasons: these concerns are either personal, subjective, or unenforceable.

Domenech's criteria place too much power in his personal preferences, and weights his personal history against his role as a YDA officer, by which he is afforded this opportunity to be a super delegate. The second criteria is entirely subjective as it relies on the personal judgment of the individual as to which proposals are better, and it offers no guarantees that said proposals will ever be enacted. The third criteria relies on an unrealistic view of the leverage that each super delegate actually wields - even in such a close race. No promises made prior to the convention, no matter how concrete, are enforceable. The candidate can only make good on promises if they become the nominee, and the Super Delegate gives up all their power once they cast a ballot. This is a one-way exchange that relies on good faith and the unrealistic assumption that promises made by campaigns in the heat of the nomination, to hundreds of distinct delegates no less, will all be honored at a later date. That's a gamble at best.

Instead, I offer the following criteria:

• YDA and CDA super delegates should cast their ballots in such a way that empowers and enfranchises the constituents they represent.
• YDA and CDA super delegates should cast their ballots in a way that concretely and verifiably builds power for young voters and their organizations.

What does that look like? I think there are two viable options, which I've ranked in the order in which I favor them:

1. National Youth Popular Vote: YDA and CDA delegates should ratify the results of the youth vote nationally. For YDA, that means voting the way that the majority of 18 - 35 year olds voted in the combined caucuses and primaries. For CDA, that means casting their ballot the way that the majority 18 - 24 year olds cast their ballot. Linking the Super Delegate vote to the youth vote nationally gives candidates - especially in a tight race - an extra incentive to go after young voters. If they know that a national win among the youth vote will results in dedicated commitment from super delegates, youth outreach will be more attractive to the campaign. This has the additional advantage of giving millions of young voters who cast their ballots a seat at the table in the otherwise "smoke-filled-room" world of the Super Delegates. As such, this meets both criteria that I laid out. It enfranchises and further empowers young voters in an otherwise insider process, and it concretely builds power for YDA and CDA by incentivizing youth outreach and youth-centric policy proposals by the campaigns. I believe this to be the most feasible (technically) and democratic of all the options, and encourage both CDA and YDA to set a precedent and informally adopt this rule.
2. Poll the YDA and CDA Membership: YDA and CDA could conduct polls of their membership (as MoveOn does) and informally require that the super delegates abide by the results. Instant run-off voting could be employed to ensure that one candidate receives a majority of votes. There are technical challenges to this - both organizations must ensure that the polls cannot be rigged, and the polling should require that a certain percent of the membership participate to ensure a fair sampling. Technically, this option meets both criteria. YDA and CDA leaders will enfranchise and empower their membership. As with the National Popular Youth Vote, it will incentivize outreach from the campaigns, though that outreach might focus on a smaller number of people (i.e. YDA and CDA members). And it will certainly build power for YDA and CDA by emphasizing the importance of their membership in the nomination process. That's not a bad thing, as it rewards participation in Democratic (Party) politics. However, I dislike this option somewhat as it could result in the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of other younger voters if YDA and CDA members choose a candidate not ratified by the majority of young voters.

I briefly toyed with the idea of a third option - that of letting each representative cast their ballot according to the popular youth vote results in their state, however that too presents a number of problems. For example, Lauren Wolfe, the President of CDA, is from Michigan, where only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot, and "uncommitted" won the youth vote. Lauren cannot vote for "uncommitted" at the convention. Does that mean Lauren is a free agent? Is she obliged to NOT vote for Clinton, who lost the popular youth vote? In the end, this method is least likely to build power for young voters nationally, and most likely to result in the disenfranchisement of young voters in general, or YDA and CDA members in particular, so I dropped it from my list as unviable.

What is most important here is that, while the media and public's attention is captured, YDA and CDA super delegates set a precedent and employ criteria that ratifies the will of young voters and/or their membership. Anything less will be a disaster for these organizations.

For years YDA and CDA were regarded as ineffectual social networking clubs - a way to pad resumes, network with party hacks, and start a career in politics: kids in suits playing politics. This was not an inaccurate analysis. That's changed since 2003. In the last four years - more so at YDA than at CDA - real field work and engagement of young voters became the mission and the passion of youth organizers. That change in mission and values - the greater focus on the worth and power of young voters - should be reflected in the way that YDA and CDA apportion their super delegates.

These positions are not rewards for the few who succeed in climbing the political rungs within these institutions. Rather, they are responsibilities that the leadership owes to those who have elevated them: the young voters about whom we've heard so much this election cycle. YDA and CDA super delegates should not thwart the will of those they represent. If they do - if they vote their personal preferences over the preferences of young voters or their membership - it will be hard to not to see it as the resurgence of the "kids in suits" mentality that hobbled the organizations for so long.

Shorter Hillary Clinton: We fucked up. Children are the future. We'll do better.

Snark aside, she actually says some good things about participatory politics and the role of the internet in empowering younger voters to be involved. It's pretty impressive watching the Clinton machine correct course.

Two quick hits today that I won't be able to fully blog but you should definitely check out:

• Looking Out for Number One: Campus Progress asks why young people are ready to organize on behalf of everyone but ourselves.
• Who's Ahead? No, Seriously . . . : Uncle Jay at Press Think has a must read about the master narrative in our political campaigns and why our public debates are no longer a war of ideas, but a battle of polls.

And something to make you laugh this morning:

• FaceBook in 40 years.