Democratic Party

Politico published an op-ed piece this morning examining both parties' use of younger messengers on television to attract the 35-60 crowd. Martin Frost, a former Democratic representative from Texas and the author, attempts to rationalize this.

Both parties know that the key electorate in the 2012 is voters between the ages of 35 and 60. Younger voters are likely to stay with President Barack Obama, but older voters are a battleground to be fought over on traditional issues like Social Security and Medicare.

It is these voters between 35 and 60, increasingly identifying as independents, who are expected to be the true battleground in both Obama’s re-election and the Democrats’ effort to re-take control of the House.

Emphasis is mine.

It's pretty simple: if the Democrats and the Obama campaign make similar assumptions about young voters and the campaign takes the youth vote for granted, the 35-60 year old vote won't matter.

Erica Williams is a social and political commentator and serves as the Senior Strategist at the Citizen Engagement Lab, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that uses digital media and technology to amplify the voices of underrepresented constituencies. This piece was crossposted with permission from Erica and was originally published at the Huffington Post.

Watching the debt insanity these past few weeks, I've had one question ringing over and over again in my head: What do we do? Not what kind of short-term lobbying and marches and calls will save our economy. The question for me has been about the longer term: What do you do when your government can't govern?

As a Gen Y-er, a product of hip hop culture and a young person in this economy, I've been conditioned to determine my own destiny, and, for all intents and purposes, hustle. So the answer is simple: When your government can't govern, you govern yourselves.

I'm no longer electing representatives to create a vision and run the country on my behalf, since it appears that on average, they can't. No, instead I'm dreaming my own vision and electing people to work for me, doing what I tell them to do. That shift in outlook and on our role as master not servant in the political process, is a change both in the theory and in practice of our engagement. Fundamentally, it shifts how we view the election and what we do after.

It makes me confident that if I have a vision for a country -- maybe one in which education is affordable, people earn a living wage, health care is free, people pays their fair share of taxes, the economy works for everyone, etc. -- I have effectively written a job description that I now have the power, with my friends, family, community, and generation to hire for. And it is then our responsibility to be the boss and ensure that the job gets done.

That is the admirable confidence of the tea party. They shouted loudly and proudly "We want our country back!" And as frightening and divisive as their rhetoric has been, their belief that they have a stake in the future of this country and therefore a right to help determine its direction is dead on. 

Unfortunately their swag is unmatched on our side. Most progressive leaders don't effectively represent the constituents that will soon make up the majority of this country: young and/or of color. And conservatives know that when we do rise up and take our place as leaders, our sheer numbers, if put behind a bold progressive vision, can cause a true revolution.

That's why over the past year as Democratic pundits, operatives, intellectuals and organizations ran around fretting about Obama's approval ratings and whether or not they had been invited to the White House, Republicans were plotting out a 2012 strategy that has nothing to do with the issues. Instead of trying to win the young, black, and brown votes they focused on making it harder for us to vote at all. A "war on voting" is well underway, with Voter ID laws that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, disenfranchise huge numbers of people of color, the young and the elderly, popping up in states across the country. Republicans unleashed a targeted and deliberate strategy to chip away at a person's ability to vote, bit by bit. Why?

Because they understand that a vote is more than a show of support for someone or something. They get that a vote is more than a moment to claim your identity, raise your voice, make yourself heard, or any of the other corny, clichéd slogans that we hear around election time. They understand that a vote can be an indication that we're hiring who we need... to do the job that we want... for the country that we deserve.

Knowing that what's at stake in this election isn't the possibility of another year with a black president but instead the opportunity to make government work for the rest of us, should be enough to get us to push past all of the hurdles, help folks get their IDs, mobilize, turn out and do what we should have been doing all along: governing our nation. 



The past two years, especially the debt ceiling debate, should have taught us a valuable lesson: Doing the work to hire someone -- knocking on doors, going to concerts, wearing t-shirts, making viral videos, and checking a box -- is a complete waste of time if you don't stick around long enough to train them, give them their marching orders, and monitor them.

So for me, Election 2012 -- and every single day afterwards -- is about taking back my power to move my country and my community in the right direction. "Hope" comes from my faith, not my politics, and I'm exhausted with the idea of "change." No more slogans, no more buzzwords. I'm tired of looking for "leaders" -- new crowned princes and princesses who are able to bundle Democratic dollars, make rich people love them, talk about young people and black folks and poor folks, and then do the same old same old. We ARE the leaders. And it's pretty simple: our vote is a powerful statement that from now on, we run this, in spite of every effort that's been made to prevent us from doing so. So let's gear up to do just that.

Follow Erica Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ericawilliamsdc

When we cover the progressive youth movement here at Future Majority, we often report, summarize, and analyze current events, whether those occur in all levels of government, within political parties, at colleges or universities, or elsewhere. What we sometimes neglect is the history and context informing much of the terrain we do cover. I wanted to take a break today, at least for this post, from our contemporary political scene and look back 40 years to a critical moment in the youth movement: the passage of the 26th Amendment that lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. While we often take this amendment for granted, re-visiting the story behind it reminds us of the importance of the youth vote and bolsters our efforts as we prepare to defend our rights against those who wish to disenfranchise us.

History:

I had assumed that the story of the 26th Amendment commenced during the Vietnam War, however I was surprised to find that President Dwight Eisenhower was the first president to argue in favor of lowering the voting age. In his 1954 State of the Union address, Eisenhower made his case by citing the discrepancy in being old enough to be drafted and deployed to a war zone but not old enough to vote for people making these policy decisions.

For years our citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America. They should participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons. I urge Congress to propose to the States a constitutional amendment permitting citizens to vote when they reach the age of 18.

Unfortunately, no amendment passed. As the 1950s came to a close, and the country elected a new president - John F. Kennedy - America was in the middle of the Cold War, pursuing a strategy of containment in an effort to stifle communism around the world. Intent on protecting South Vietnam from communism, the U.S. committed an increasing amount of resources to fighting the North Vietnamese, deploying the first combat troops in 1965. In 1968, North Vietnam launched the Tet Offensive against the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces; the unforeseen attack didn't jibe with statements from American leaders claiming that the end was near. The anti-war movement strengthened.

In 1970, at the height of student activism, President Nixon re-visited extending voting rights to those Americans between the ages of 18 and 21. With increasing numbers of Americans opposing military action in Vietnam and the death toll mounting every day, the discrepancy between soldiers being conscripted for military service while being unable to influence the political process through voting became more apparent. Nixon felt the pressure. On June 22 of that year, Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, lowering the minimum voting age to 18. He did so, though, noting that the courts might deem some of the provisions unconstitutional. After Oregon and Texas challenged the new law all the way to the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that while Congress had the power to lower the voting age in federal elections, the provisions in the law regulating state and local elections were unconstitutional (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 [1970]). Faced with the possibility of having two separate voting rolls in some states, one on the federal level that allowed 18-21 year olds to vote and one on state and local levels barring them from voting, Congress and state legislatures moved to pass the 26th Amendment to the Constitution.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted to propose an amendment guaranteeing that the standard minimum voting age would be 18 (94-0). Then, on March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 to pass the amendment. After only four months from the time Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment had been ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This was the fastest any amendment had been adopted by the states. The Amendment reads:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Following the passage of the amendment, President Nixon issued the following statement:

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill it in his own life.

I can't tell what strikes me more about this - his hypocrisy or the significant difference in rhetoric and ideology between this Republican president and today's GOP.

Tracing Youth Voting Rates Since 1971:

In 1972, for the first time in the nation's history, 18 year olds were able to vote in a presidential election. 55.4% of the 18-29 age group voted that year, which continues to be the highest turnout on record. Both the 1992 election (52%) and the 2008 (51.1%) came close to matching this rate. (See CIRCLE PDF here.)

After 1972, the youth vote was consistently attacked as being unreliable. This attitude led to a cycle in which candidates refused to pay young adults attention on the campaign trail, and young adults, feeling ignored, disengaged from the political process by not voting. We also know that generational dynamics also came into play. Generation X, coming of age in the 1980s and 1990s, was deemed cynical, individualistic, and alienated; this further led to a downward trend in the youth vote.

However, the Millennials followed Generation X and differed in their attitudes toward voting significantly. While Generation X disengaged from the process altogether, Millennials - known as a civic generation according to generational theorists Howe and Strauss - welcomed community engagement. While discouraged by the complex and hostile nature of politics, they repeatedly expressed that being involved in their respective communities was important to them. As they came of age, the youth voting rate began to rise. This graphic, depicting both college and non-college voting rates, illustrates the upward trajectory of the youth vote in the last several presidential elections after its plummet in the mid-1990s.

What's at Stake:

Though Millennials are generally more engaged than the generational cohort behind them, we still have work to do. We can always do a better job of recruiting more young people to run for office and increasing voting rates in off-year elections. We saw the importance of this just last year, in 2010, when a whiter, older, wealthier, and more conservative electorate voted, sweeping Republicans to a House majority and into control of many statehouses.

Unfortunately, the consequences are also directly impacting the youth vote. Many states, at the behest of new Republican governors (like Scott Walker of Wisconsin, pictured) and Republican legislatures are constructing barriers to keep youth from voting, effectively deconstructing the 26th Amendment we're celebrating today. States are either establishing or preparing to establish poll tax fees to support a voter ID system, or enacting strict photo ID standards that would restrict students and members of the military from voting (or both!). Rescinding same-day registration and motor voter laws in order to curb "voter fraud" (the idea of which has proved to be a fraud itself) is underway in several states, specifically impacting students, the poor, and many working people. As if this wasn't enough, new Republican majorities, preoccupied with the debt instead of investing in its people, are cutting billions of dollars from the education of our young people (especially civic education).

So, as we take time today to remember how the youth vote was expanded with the passage of the 26th Amendment 40 years ago, we would also do well to acknowledge that youth voting rights aren't safe and are, in fact, under attack.

Celebrating the 26th Amendment:

In closing, I wanted to highlight a few statements and an effort in support of the 26th Amendment's 40th anniversary. We thank everyone involved for commemorating this important day, but also urge all Americans to understand the importance of safeguarding and expanding youth participation in our democracy.

• The Overseas Vote Foundation is organizing a Twitter event in support of this historical milestone, saluting America's young people by engaging U.S. voters around the world in a dialogue about "why you vote" - in 140 characters or less. The organization is holding a daylong conversation on the Twitter channel #WhyUVote beginning at 9:00 am Eastern Standard Time on Friday, July 1, 2011. They're hoping you tweet your TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE and and include #WhyUVote. Join in and follow the worldwide Twitter conversation moderated by Youth Vote Overseas Program Coordinator Michael Casey Bonfield here
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz issued a statement of support for the 26th Amendment:
  

  Since 1971, young voters have played an indispensable role in the electoral process. Their spirit and activism help guide the country and their belief in the power and promise of America continually inspires us. Young voters are a reminder that America’s greatest resource will always be the ability of generations to rise up to the challenges of their time. That is why the Democratic Party and President Obama have actively sought to include young voters in the electoral process and make sure their voice is heard at the voting booth. Youth activism has been particularly important to me--having gotten my start in politics in college and having run for office for the first time at the age of 25, I know first hand how important it is to foster enthusiasm and commitment to public service in young people.

  Unfortunately, recent legislative actions by Republicans are threatening to limit young people's ability to participate in the electoral process. While Republican governors and legislatures across the country attempt to hinder young people from voting, the Democratic Party will continue fighting to expand the electorate and make sure young voters are able to exercise their Constitutional right to vote.

• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi also issued a statement:
  

  “Forty years ago, our nation opened the doors of democracy to millions of Americans. By extending the right to vote – the most fundamental right of a citizen in a democratic society – to Americans age 18 and older, we offered our youth the responsibility and opportunity to participate; we placed the power of the ballot in their hands, empowering generations of students and young people to determine their own destiny.

  “The 26th amendment ensured that the leaders of tomorrow – our future workers and business owners, entrepreneurs and public servants – recognize that elections are as much about them as their parents and grandparents. Whether it’s making health care more affordable; investing in schools and student aid; creating jobs or balancing the budget – Americans of all ages have a stake in the decisions of their elected representatives.

  “Four decades after the ratification of the 26th amendment, the fight for voting rights goes on. Today, state legislatures across the country are pushing new legislation that threatens to disenfranchise millions of voters, especially students and minority communities. These actions contradict our core democratic principles and betray our values as a people.

  “Democrats will stand firm for the basic right of every American to vote and choose their own leaders. We will uphold the central promise of the 26th amendment: that ‘the right of citizens of the United States…to vote shall not be denied or abridged.’”

Update: Other statements have come in, so I am posting those, as well as links to two pieces that connect the anniversary with Republican-led efforts to disenfranchise young voters today.

• A proclamation from President Barack Obama:
  

  Forty years ago, the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution took effect, lowering the universal voting age in America from 21 years to 18 years. Millions of young Americans were extended the right to vote, empowering more young people than ever before to help shape our country. On this anniversary, we remember the commitment of all those who fought for the right to vote and celebrate the contributions of young adults to our Nation.

  The right to vote has been secured by generations of leaders over our history, from the women's groups of the early 20th century to the civil rights activists of the 1960s. For young people, the movement to lower America's voting age took years of hard work and tough advocacy to make the dream a reality. Yet, once proposed in Congress in 1971, the 26th Amendment was ratified in the shortest time span of any Constitutional Amendment in American history.

  In the midst of the Vietnam War, our Nation bestowed upon our young people the ability to change the status quo and entrusted them with a new voice in government. Today, young adults across America continue to exercise this enormous responsibility of citizenship. Countless young people are involved in the political process, dedicated to ensuring their voices are heard.

  Ideas from young Americans are important to my Administration, and they will help shape the future of our Nation. We are committed to supporting and developing young leaders from all beliefs and backgrounds, and from urban and rural communities alike. This year, I launched "100 Youth Roundtables," an initiative to facilitate substantive dialogue between my Administration and young Americans. We hosted a Young Entrepreneur Summit to listen to budding entrepreneurs and better assess their needs. And this summer, we are beginning a "How to Make Change" series for young Americans from all walks of life who are seeking change in their communities and our world.

  Young adults have been a driving force for change in the last century, bringing new ideas and high hopes to our national dialogue. Today, we remember the efforts of those who fought for their seat at the table, and we encourage coming generations to claim their place in our democracy.

  NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim July 1, 2011, as the 40th Anniversary of the 26th Amendment. I call upon all Americans to participate in ceremonies and activities that honor young Americans, and those who have fought for freedom and justice in our country.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of July, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

  BARACK OBAMA

• From Rod Snyder, President of the Young Democrats of America:
  

  "Today the Young Democrats of America (YDA) joins all Americans in celebrating the 40th anniversary of the ratification of the 26th amendment to the Constitution, which extended the right to vote to citizens 18 years of age and older.

  "The ratification of the 26th amendment was an important moment in our nation’s history where we recognized the inconsistency of asking young Americans to fight in wars on foreign shores while not affording the basic right to participate in our democracy at home.

  "Over the past forty years, young people have helped shape the future of our nation, with youth participation notably on the rise during the past decade. YDA and other youth organizations have played an important role in ensuring that young Americans have the opportunity influence the political process.

  "Yet on the anniversary of this important step forward, voting rights are facing calculated attacks by Republican state lawmakers across the country. GOP-controlled legislatures are seeking to systematically erect barriers to the democratic process and deny millions of Americans the right to vote.

  "Make no mistake, Republicans are attempting to disenfranchise groups of voters that they have failed to win over in the ballot box, including students and minority communities. Our democracy cannot survive if politicians are permitted to select their voters rather than voters selecting their leaders. Our most fundamental constitutional rights should never be subject to partisan politics.

  "These recent Republican attacks are a reminder that we cannot take voting rights for granted. YDA applauds the group of U.S. Senators led by Michael Bennet (D-CO) who are urging the Department of Justice to review new restrictive voting laws at the state level."

• The League's Executive Director Biko Baker has a piece in The Hill - "The War on Voting Weakens Youth Power"
• Campus Progress is up with a piece warning us to enjoy the 26th Amendment while it lasts.

Some interesting reads for you as we prepare to move into another week.

• With all the economic strife Millennials are experiencing these days, perhaps we need a National Youth Administration to help dig our way out?
• Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile outlines the extent to which Republicans plan to suppress votes in future elections.
• NPR explores how young people can improve their financial literacy; this article is one of a series of articles on the topic.
• Did you know? The largest number of American hate groups are located in Idaho and Mississippi.
• A Huffington Post piece discusses the importance of young people starting businesses and how we can enhance youth entrepreneurship in the future.
• Montana college students will be hit with a 10 percent tuition increase over two years. Why? State budget cuts.
• Allowing concealed guns on college campuses appeared to be sure to pass in Texas. However, some Democratic tactics appear to have dealt the bill a fatal blow.

From the "you don't say" file:

Republicans received a boost over Democrats in landline-only telephone polls, according to a new study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Polls this fall that reached only landline phone numbers ended up giving Republicans an extra five percentage points compared with polls that dialed both landline and mobile phones, the study concluded. Pew said that’s because almost a quarter of U.S. homes don’t have a landline telephone number, and cell phone users tend to be younger and more Democratic.

This serves as a reminder to be especially critical of polls purporting to measure any kind of reality while failing to allow for representation of cell phone-only households in its results. Given the tendency of youth to forego landlines, we'd be doing ourselves a disservice to continue to peddle the polling garbage that is landline-only surveys.

Well, here we go again.

The New York Times published a story today out of Colorado looking at whether or not young voters could be turning away from the Democratic ranks -- two years after serving as one of the bedrock groups in Obama's voting coalition. The story seems to be fairly balanced in its views, as there are some younger voters proclaiming their continued allegiance to the President and the Democratic Party, but there are also young voters souring on the Democratic leadership.

One young voter was particularly descriptive in explaining her conflicted views.

Kristin Johnson, 23, like many other students interviewed here in recent days, said that a vote for Democrats in 2008, however passionate it was, did not a Democrat make. But she bristles just as much at the idea of being called a Republican.

“It’s like picking a team when you really don’t want to root for either team,” said Ms. Johnson, a communication studies major, who said she was undecided about parties and politics going into the general election campaign.

If Democrats are letting voters like Ms. Johnson get away from them across the country, the ramifications of this blunder will be felt for a long, long time. But that's another topic for another day.

I wanted to focus on another passage from the article, one that reflects exactly what we have been facing throughout the last few special elections and what we will be fighting back through November and beyond.

How and whether millions of college students vote will help determine if Republicans win enough seats to retake the House or Senate, overturning the balance of power on Capitol Hill, and with it, Mr. Obama’s agenda. If students tune out and stay home it will also carry a profound message for American society about a generation that seemed so ready, so recently, to grab national politics by the lapels and shake.

While Kirk Johnson, the writer of this piece, does not go into specifics as far as what he means by a "profound message," I think the odds are good that these few lines illuminate the common misunderstanding that Johnson and other journalists run with when writing these stories. They go with the surface level content, mindlessly reporting that youth did not show up at the polls and, thus, are not interested in voting. Apparently, we're just not prepared.

But what about the other possibility: perhaps youth, suckered into this idea that politicians - maybe just once - might care about our issues, might be willing to talk big, think big, dream big, and for once exercise some pragmatic idealism, are let down. After being counted on to move this Democratic administration and congressional leadership into power, perhaps we are pissed off and making a political statement by refusing to be taken for granted.

That's where this article falls short. There are other possibilities for why youth might not be voting. Not because we are apathetic, or turned off to politics. It's because politicians gave us their word, we gave them our vote, and aside from a watered down health care bill, a stimulus that was too small, and maybe a few other bills, the work hasn't been done, and the to-do list is getting longer. Furthermore, we are left hanging in the breeze, waiting for an honest explanation... still.. waiting.. for that honest explanation.

So don't get us wrong: we're still ready to shake some lapels. But in order to be most effective, we need candidates who are uncompromising in their tenacity on confronting big issues, but flexible in crafting solutions to our problems. And we need them to engage us.

Yesterday, Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, of NDN fame, presented the findings of an online poll they conducted from June 1-7. The report, "The Changing Coalitions of 21st Century America," explores how the parties are adapting to rapidly changing demographics in America.

The data affirms what we have been noting for some time now.

While most Americans continue to favor activist government focused on promoting economic equality, those components of the electorate that identify most strongly with the Democratic Party are much more likely to want to see that approach reflected in legislation on such issues as health care, education, and off shore drilling. In addition, while both party's coalitions want action on the economy and financial reform, only major groups within the GOP coalition are strongly concerned with reducing government spending and the federal debt. These deeply felt differences are likely to be reflected in the 2010 midterm elections campaigns and on Capitol Hill in the years ahead.

Democrats retain a clear lead in both party identification and the congressional generic ballot that is virtually unchanged from the lead they held in the project's first survey conducted in February 2010. The core groups of the Democratic Party's new coalition - Millennials, African-Americans, Hispanics - remain solidly Democratic in both their partisan identifications and vote intentions, but the current lack of political intensity among these Democratic groups give Republicans an opening to make gains in 2010.

In short: the Democratic coalition has the demographic trends in their favor, but whether or not they can effectively mobilize these voters in a hostile environment is the big question.

Morley and Mike's presentation can be found here and the executive summary is here.

Matt Bai's piece in the New York Times Magazine chronicles the emerging tensions between the White House and the Congress as they strategize for the 2010 mid-terms. Within the piece, Bai discusses the generational dynamic at play as the DNC (what is now the Obama-backed OFA) is pushing congressional candidates (against their wills) to make their pitches to voters normally perceived as unreliable.

...The lesson that Plouffe and his operation took away from the dismal 2009 elections is that Obama can act like a matchmaker of sorts, introducing the party’s candidates to new voters and vouching for their intentions, but it’s only going to matter if the candidates themselves embrace the so-called new politics. What that means, practically speaking, is that the White House is urging candidates to divert a fair amount of their time and money — traditionally used for buying TV ads and rallying core constituencies — to courting volunteers and voters who haven’t generally been reliable Democrats.

This is not what members of Congress or their campaign managers are trained to do, and it has created something of a cultural chasm between the White House and the party apparatus. There is a strong generational component here. With some exceptions, Obama’s passion for organizing finds more enthusiasm among candidates closer to the president’s age and newer to politics (candidates like Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado), while older Democrats have a harder time imagining that a bunch of volunteers and a dozen virtual town-hall meetings are going to matter more than labor endorsements and some killer 30-second spots...

[...]

By Democratic Party standards, this is a relatively muted internal disagreement. But it nonetheless points to the emergence of rival schools of thought within the party when it comes to Obama’s importance as a party leader. Some see him as having transformed both the electorate and the nature of campaigning in what could be a lasting and fundamental way, meaning that things are possible now — both in terms of liberal governance and winning elections — that did not seem possible before. Others view 2008 mostly as a cathartic election that had more to do with conditions in the country than with Obama’s peculiar magic, and they don’t think the party should assume that there are millions of new voters out there who can be tapped if you just knock on the right doors. These two worldviews coexist uneasily among the party’s elected officials and candidates, young and old, in every part of the country — sometimes just hours apart.

The congressional camp within the Democratic Party reflects the status quo that continues to claim that new voters -- including young voters -- don't vote and are apathetic. What they refuse to understand is that we are civically active; we do vote when we are genuinely engaged in a conversation about issues through a medium relevant to our lifestyles. These labor endorsements and "killer" television ads are almost as boring as network news these days. Instead, we should be investing in the peer-to-peer voting drives and organizing work that have already increased the youth vote for three straight elections. From Mike Connery's Journalist Cheat Sheet:

Tip #5: If you insist on reporting the same old story that young people vote at a lower rate than the rest of the electorate, then you have an obligation to also inform your readers/viewers/listeners that youth turnout has increased for 3 years straight, and is at its highest level in over a decade. You also have an obligation to note that in 2006 the youth vote swung a number of important federal races, including pushing Democratic candidates Jon Tester, Jim Webb, and Joe Courtney over the top.

Source: Historical voting patterns (pdf), Impact on Races (pdf), Midterm Turnout (pdf).

Tip #6: If you are going to report on low-turnout among young voters, you also have an obligation to note that young people face more barriers to voting than do older voters. We move more frequently, requiring us to re-register sometimes on a yearly basis, on campus we face a lack of voting machines and long lines, and many university towns actively discourage and try to prevent students from voting.

Source: League of Conservation Voters Education Fund

Tip #7: There are simple fixes to the problems outlined in #6 – election day and same-day registration and mail-in voting are two such fixes that can be applied at the state level. These have been proven to bump youth turnout by as much as 14%!!!!! It would be nice if you reported on them occasionally.

Source: CIRCLE

Tip #8: Young voters will participate if they are asked to, particularly by a peer. This is proven. But the system stopped asking long ago by removing resources and manpower away from young voter outreach. Only in recent years have organizations – and a few campaigns – begin to reengage young voters in any serious way. The result is three straight years in which youth turnout increased. In plain terms: young voters are not apathetic. Rather, the system fails to engage them in any meaningful way.

Source: Young Voter Strategies, Voter Mobilization Tactics

Tip #9: Stop reporting on “celebrity activism” as the Rosetta Stone for understanding the youth vote. This is a Boomer and Gen-X construction created for a broadcast TV culture of the 80s and 90s. Today’s young voters are interested in peer-to-peer communication and networked action. From Facebook to on the ground, peer to peer organizing at club, bars, barbershops and apartment canvassing, the most effective, and sustainable developments in youth organizing in the past five years have come from new, grassroots organizations doing peer to peer organizing on the ground or online. Stop reporting on celebrities and start doing the work of talking to and reporting on the activities of these organizations. Good places to start include:

Forward Montana, The Oregon Bus Project, New Era Colorado, Young Democrats of America, and The League of Young Voters.

There are many more, but let’s do this in baby steps. Start with these and we’ll work out way deeper into youth organizing together.

Young voters can be courted; it just takes some courage and genuine effort. The Speaker's office and legislators like Congressman George Miller (D-CA) have been great on youth policy issues, but in purely electoral terms, the Congressional campaign plan outlined above is disappointing. While OFA doesn't have a pristine record with young voters, they apparently get it more than many of the old guard congressmen and congresswomen.

UPDATE: An example of Congress not understanding youth priorities or youth culture today? Ike Skelton, a longtime Democratic congressman, provides one:

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Tuesday that he thought the military should keep its ban on openly gay service members in part because he did not want to open a national discussion about homosexuality. The chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, a conservative Missouri Democrat, said he thought the debate in Congress over the proposed repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy might force families to explain homosexuality to their children. “What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child?” Mr. Skelton asked reporters at a news media breakfast.

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.

Ben Goddard at The Hill comments on the current generation gap in politics. His discussion reminds us of the coalition-based, yet impatient methodology Millennials use to solve problems.

They have not generally gotten involved with candidates or issues because “Millennials perceive politics as a polarized debate with no options for compromise or nuance,” in the words of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. They don’t want to be limited by political party affiliation. They care about issues important to their “community” and will work with anyone who can get something done.

But [Millennials] are impatient. That is why so many seemed to drift away from President Barack Obama as the healthcare debate dragged on and partisanship in Washington got out of hand. For nearly a year and a half their parents’ and grandparents’ generations argued over what — to many — seemed like petty details. They tuned out not because they didn’t care but because they were bored.

Now that there actually is a healthcare bill, it will be fascinating to see if they are willing to re-engage. The Obama campaign showed how to communicate with and motivate this generation in 2008. Re-engaging them will be crucial to the president’s reelection and, arguably, to Democrats’ congressional future. There are 44 million Millennials eligible to vote, which is about 20 percent of the electorate. Most of them are independents — at least in their voting patterns. Recent polls show independents drifting away from the Republican Party as a result of the angry debate in Washington. The Millennials could lead that bloc of voters back into the Obama/Democrat fold if the president can show that together, they are making a difference. Millennials make up a big community confident in their ability to make change and willing to get involved if the president and congressional Democrats send them the right pithy message: Yes, we did.

Goddard's assessment is the first I have encountered that accurately captures the Millennials' move away from Democrats this year. It's not that they are becoming conservative. It's that they are looking at an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress -- a Congress they have more of a stake in than any other in recent history, given their turnout rate in 2006 and 2008 -- and seeing few issues of theirs discussed in a substantive manner. When the focus is on bitter, personal debates -- personality rather than the problem itself -- any notion that representatives and senators might be interested in problem-solving is out the door.

And now we get to why that impacts our country. The obvious answer is rooted in that generational pact seen in American society for centuries -- that each generation is responsible for ensuring that the torch it passes to a new generation burns brighter. We know that the life-long adoption of civic habits like voting are dependent on youth engagement. The more a young person votes when he or she is first eligible, the more he/she will continue to vote later in life. Furthermore, from a large-D Democratic perspective, given the obvious electoral benefits of adding a large, engaged, liberal generation to the voting rolls, the Democrats should be thinking of everything they can do to appeal to young people. In V.O. Key's terms, the PIG (Party-in-Government) must mind the PIE (Party-in-Electorate), designing ways to better communicate the process so that it doesn't interfere with young voters' appreciation of the policy output. Easier said than done, but it must be done.

Bottom line: if we fail to engage a group of young people who are interested in being engaged, we're not only letting them down, we're letting our nation down.