cda

The two superdelegates from the College Democrats of America - Lauren Wolfe and Awais Khaleel - have endorsed Obama. This comes at the end of a long process in which they posted a YouTube video asking for advice from college students, were lobbied heavily by Obama surrogates, their fellow young superdelegates, and Students for Barack Obama. It also comes on the heels of criticism for lagging in their endorsement.

There are 5 superdelegates allocated in total to YDA and CDA. Lauren and Awais's endorsements put the tally at 3 - 1 in favor of Obama. Still to endorse: YDA President David Hardt.

Lauren Wolfe, the President of the College Democrats, and Awais Khaleel, CDA's Vice President, are two of the youngest Super Delegates who will decide this nomination. They're asking for your advice on how to cast their ballots:

It's unscientific, and I tend to think that the voting preferences shown by young people at the polls will give them a better indication as to how their constituents would prefer they cast their "super ballots," but this is an attempt at bringing transparency to the process that should be commended.

More cynical people might also say that it's not a bad way to list-build for the College Democrats.

When writing and researching Youth to Power, I knew that many in the College Democrats (current and alumni), would not like what I wrote. My book comes down pretty hard on College Democrats. It shouldn't come as a surprise, I've written similarly disapproving posts here on FM in the past. It seems the backlash has started.

I'm sure there are many excellent leaders in the College Democrats, and many individual chapters that excel. Nevertheless, as a whole the organization lags behind YDA and it's newer counterparts in many areas and I believe what I wrote to be accurate. Here's my response to a review published in the Politico by Ethan Porter, a former Executive Board member of the College Democrats.

In a review published by The Politico, Ethan Porter fails to offer a substantive critique of my book, Youth to Power, preferring to brush aside a majority of my observations and conclusions so he can settle scores for his own organization, the College Democrats, who come off rather poorly in its pages. His analysis is laughably lopsided.

In my book, I note that a boom in youth organizing - funded by disaffected donors, run by Millennials, and mostly occurring outside of the party structure (though also within through the Young Democrats) - adopted new tactics and strategies to reach young voters. These strategies included culturally appropriate, peer to peer outreach that treated young people as a valuable constituency of voters and engaged citizens, not as manual labor for campaigns or apathetic slackers. Over the course of the last 5 years, these new organizations have built a progressive youth movement from scratch that in differing ways lags behind, rivals and in others surpasses the conservative youth infrastructure.

Unfortunately, you wouldn't know any of this from reading Porter's review. To be sure, Porter feigns interest in the subject, noting the meteoric rise of Obama and expressing curiosity as to how it happened:

How and why did this happen? Who were the major players, and which organizations were most responsible?

These are important questions that deserve thoughtful answers. Unfortunately, Mike Connery’s “Youth to Power: How Today’s Young Voters Are Building Tomorrow’s Progressive Majority,” fails to provide them.

Apparently 76 pages devoted exclusively to outlining those organizations, what they do, how they got started, who runs them, what they've accomplished, and where they still need to improve doesn't qualify in Porter's world. After briefly noting that I "get the big picture right," Porter ignores the bulk of the reporting in my book and, offering little in the way of evidence, states that my "provocative" thesis - outlined above - "misconstrues the nature of the recent upsurge in youth liberal activism."

Exactly what the true nature of the recent upsurge in liberal activism is, Porter never really says. In reading his review one is left with the feeling that it's got a whole lot more to do with Porter's own organization, the College Democrats. Unfortunately, neither he nor the College Democrats of America, with whom I spoke with during the writing of my book, can provide any proof that this is the case. What few examples Porter does hold up merely reinforce the points I make in my text.

Porter champions "small d democracy" and trumpets the College Democrats and the DNC as a shining example of "chaotic," decentralized activism. But decentralized doesn't mean unaccountable, and that's the real problem. It's fine if the College Democrats have a decentralized, nimble structure, as long as they accomplish real results which can be proven and replicated. Decentralize doesn't mean disconnected and mechanisms should be in place to report on activities and share best (and worst) practices. None of that data could be provided to me by the College Democrats.

Absent such controls, it is difficult to say just what the College Democrats do, which is one of the major problems with the organization during the time period on which I reported. There is little difference between the programming, structure and strategy of the College Democrats between 2004 and 2000, yet the results of the elections (in terms of youth participation) couldn't be more different. At the very best, that speaks well of Millennials, but is says very little about the College Democrats.

No, the real difference came not from the College Democrats, but from the new organizations that I discussed at length, and the cultural and peer-to-peer strategies they brought to the table. This was admirably documented by researcher Ryan Friedrichs in his study - Young Voter Mobilization in 2004 (pdf) and further explained in the report A Gift to Democrats (pdf) put out by Skyline Public Works.

Porter's final complaint seems to be that I failed to mention some of the stellar talent produced by the College Democrats. I have no doubt that CDA does produce some talent that do excellent work and go on to illustrious careers in Democratic politics. Just as I have no doubt that certain chapters of CDA are also very effective at what they do even if the organization as a whole is not. However both of these points completely miss what is important about the last few years and my arguments against the College Democrats.

At numerous points in the last few years, the College Democrats were afforded the opportunity to increase their budget by an order of magnitude. Time and again, they were offered the opportunity to run peer to peer field programs of the kind that YDA and the organizations of the [dot] Org Boom embraced. It is this infusion of money and investment in youth as a constituency to be organized that are making the difference, and in both of these areas the College Democrats are not a significant part of the picture. Maybe this will change in 2008, but it was not true during the writing of my book and in the time period on which I reported.

As for the connection between progressive youth organizing and the rise of Barack Obama, I freely admit that my book touches on this only briefly and offers little in the way of direct connections. Not because there aren't any, but because the final pages were written well before Sen. Obama's victory in Iowa at a time when Clinton actually led Sen. Obama in most youth polling. Alas, I was not able to see into the future while writing and researching my book.

But I continue to blog about this topic on Future Majority, and I've made note numerous times that Sen. Obama's campaign is a beneficiary of the strategies tested and pioneered in 2004 and 2006, as well as a pioneer themselves. Without question, his youth campaign, which is quite tight-lipped about their tactical operations, has expanded on these successes in ways that many of us could not even dream in 2004, but that was outside the scope of my book by virtue of the fact that when I was writing the book Obama's successes had not yet happened.

In the end, Porter's discontent with my book is understandable as I criticized an organization of which he was a part. Yet that bias clearly clouded his judgment in his review, and his critique offers little to disprove my claims or uphold his own.

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.

A number of people have gotten in touch with me about my recent post on the Maine College Democrats (pretty much all of whom told me I was off base in at least some part of my critique), so I think a follow-up is in order.

On the Video:

It's been made clear to me that this video was intended for use solely at the Maine College Democrats fall convention, and it was used as an introduction to a speech by Congressman Allen (aka white dude in the video). As such, most of my critiques were off base. It's a high-quality video, intended purely as red meat to a small and highly motivated audience. It wasn't meant to convince anyone of anything, and was the right message for its targeted audience. It was great work by the person who put it together - I should hope to see material of that quality consistently from all progressive youth organizations throughout the 2008 cycle and beyond.

On the Blogopshere

It's been made clear to me that my final paragraph seemed to come out of nowhere and make little sense. That sucks - it was a rushed post in many respects and in hindsight it would have come out very differently (or not at all). So here's some more (hopefully coherent) thoughts.

The fact that MyDD, America Blog and SenateGuru 2008 all gave props to the Maine CDA video is a good thing on the whole. It is too infrequent that young organizers get credit in the blogosphere for their good work, and in so much as the quality of this video was so high, it deserves some praise.

So why did I write what I did?

My post was an overreaction to the fact that I hold fairly low (and well known) opinions about CDA and its work. Part of that is the fault of the DNC, part is the fault of those in the leadership of the organization (and to be honest, I'm not sure how much blame to assign to each). College Democrats of America is an underfunded and opaque organization of questionable effectiveness. The fact that they are underfunded is the fault of both the DNC who controls the CDA budget and the state parties who poach funding earmarked for youth outreach and spend it on other projects. That the organization is opaque is both the fault of the leadership and the DNC press office, which keeps a tight lid on things. It's questionable effectiveness comes from a combination of all of these things.

Writing about youth organizing should be a mix of carrot and stick, just like it is for our candidates and our institutions; groups should be praised when they do good, and critiqued when they do bad. When NARAL endorsed pro-choice Republicans over Anti-choice Democrats, the blogosphere didn't sit back and applaud NARAL for promoting pro-choice values. Instead, it was quick to point out the flaws of its strategy in achieving its long term goals. The blogosphere should turn the same critical eye to the work of youth organizations.

I often find it frustrating that within the blogosphere (and all media, really) youth organizing frequently gets boiled down to "college" (even though only 1/5 of 18 - 29 year olds currently attend a college or university). There are many more youth organizations out there than those that work on campuses, and much of the work in turning out more young voters in recent years has focused off campus as much as (if not more than) on. Our understanding of "youth activism" (our = the blogosphere and the media) needs to expand beyond what happens on college campuses just as much as it needs to move beyond the apathy narrative.

I confess, that it also irked me that so much praise (front page coverage on MyDD, America Blog and SenateGuru 2008 is nothing to sneeze at, and many organizations would love to have such coverage) went to something that at the end of the day was really so small - a promotional video meant to be viewed by only a handful of college students in one of the least populated states in the country.

That said, this was clearly the wrong time for me to pick this particular fight. My beef with CDA and the blogosphere's coverage of youth organizing are all separate issues, and I did a disservice to them all when I hurriedly conflated them in my posting. I'm mindful of the benefits of establishing a positive feedback loop between the blogs and youth organizers. CDA did a good job here and I shouldn't begrudge them some deserved praise.