Millennial Makeover

This month’s off year elections sent one message to Washington that has been heard loud and clear. Voters expect Congress to focus on the economy, especially employment, and take decisive and affirmative steps to deal with both the causes and ravages of the greatest economic downturn in the U.S. since the Great Depression. As the Obama administration considers a variety of new proposals to help bring down the unemployment rate, one key constituency is raising its voice and asking for a return on the investment it made in his presidency.

Members of the Millennial generation, born between 1982-2003, who were eligible to vote in 2008 went for Barack Obama over John McCain by a 2:1 margin and made up over 80% of the President’s winning margin. They continue to support his presidency and identify as Democrats by similar margins. A late October Pew survey indicates that Millennials identify as Democrats over Republicans by almost 20 percentage points (52% vs. 34%), well above the 8-point Democratic advantage among older generations. In the latest Research 2000 weekly tracking survey conducted for Daily Kos, 80% of Millennials had a favorable opinion of the president; only 14% of everyone in this generation viewed him unfavorably. This compares with a 55% vs. 39% favorable/unfavorable ratio among the entire electorate in both the Research 2000 survey and in a series of November surveys conducted by organizations ranging from ABC News and the Washington Post to Fox, although some other polls put the President’s job performance ratings closer to 50%.

But despite the clearly stronger support the President has among their generation, Millennials are increasingly restive about the lack of action in Congress to address the economic problems they face – both now and in the future.

Recent Pew research studies underline the major impact that the recession has had on individual Americans and their families. Thirteen percent of parents with grown children told Pew researchers that one of their adult sons or daughters had moved back home in the past year. Pew found that of all grown children living with their parents, 2 in 10 were full-time students, one-quarter were unemployed and about one-third had lived on their own before returning home. According to the census, 56 percent of men 18 to 24 years old and 48 percent of women were either still under the same roof as their parents or had moved back home.

The lack of jobs was particularly acute among adult members of the Millennial Generation (18-27 year olds), 61% of whom said that they or someone close to them was jobless recently. A clear plurality (46%) says that the “job situation” rather than rising prices (27%), problems in the financial markets (14%) and declining real estate values (7%) is their major economic worry.

As a result, the number one concern among Millennials is the state of the economy and the need for jobs, but they have a unique perspective on how to deal with this issue.

Millennials believe there is a clear link between education and employment and are increasingly concerned that the pathway through the educational system into the world of work is becoming increasingly more difficult and expensive to navigate. Last week, about one hundred of the nation’s top private sector and government leaders gathered for the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council also identified education as the nation’s top economic priority.

For Millennials, the problem is personal. A smaller share of 16-to-24-year-olds – 46 percent – is currently employed than at any time since the government began collecting that data in 1948. A job market with Depression-level youth unemployment (18.5%) and a wrenching transformation in the types of jobs America needs and produces makes the implicit bargain of education in return for future economic success harder for Millennials to believe in every day.

Recently Matt Segal, Executive Director of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) and Founder and National Co-Chair of the “80 Million Strong for Young Americans Job Coalition” presented some ideas to the House Education and Labor Committee on what Congress could do to address this challenge. He advocated increased entrepreneurial resources be made available to youth; more access to public service careers through internships and loan forgiveness programs; and the creation of “mission critical” jobs in such fields as health care, cyber-security and the environment that would tap the unique talents of this generation. Since two-thirds of Millennials who graduate from a four-year college do so with over $20,000 in debt, debt, his testimony also urged immediate Senate approval of the student debt reform bill recently passed by the House.

There is more that can be done beyond these excellent recommendations. This summer, the President's Council of Economic Advisors released a report outlining the importance of community colleges in making America's workforce more competitive in the global economy. "We believe it's time to reform our community colleges so that they provide Americans of all ages a chance to learn the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for the jobs of the future." The report urged Congress to pass House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larsen’s bill, The Community College Technology Access Act of 2009, in order to help meet President Obama’s goal of graduating five million more Americans from community colleges by 2020.

Millennials, like their GI Generation great grandparents in the 1930s, are facing economic challenges that caught them by surprise and for which no one prepared them. But Millennials aren’t looking for a handout or sympathy. Instead, in the “can do” spirit of their generation, they are organizing to overcome the challenges created for them by their elders. It’s time for the Democrats who control Congress to recognize these concerns and to act decisively on their behalf.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

The latest unemployment numbers and poll results have led most observers to predict a major setback for Democrats in the 2010 Congressional elections. But a year is a lifetime in politics and much can change between now and then to influence next year’s vote. As Ron Brownstein recently pointed out, the demographic makeup of the electorate is likely to be a key factor in whether or not the Democrats can maintain their current majority margins in 2010. While traditionally Democrats have focused on turning out African-American and Hispanic voters to offset Republican strength among white male voters that equation is no longer the only calculation Democratic strategists need to make.

Today the level and intensity of interest among Millennials young voters 18-28, is equally important in ensuring Democratic victories. But for that group of voters to turn out in large numbers, Congressional Democrats will have to make a much more concerted effort than they have to date to deliver on a series of policy issues of major concern to Millennials, the generation that provided Barack Obama 80% of his popular vote margin over John McCain in 2008.

As with most other Americans, the number one concern among Millennials is the state of the economy and the need for jobs. But Millennials have a unique perspective on this issue, one that Congress must understand and address. Millennials believe there is a clear link between education and employment and are increasingly concerned that the pathway through the educational system into the world of work is becoming increasingly more difficult and expensive to navigate.

Two-thirds of Millennials who graduate from a four-year college do so with over $20,000 in debt. A job market with Depression-level youth unemployment (18.5%) and a wrenching transformation of the types of jobs America needs and produces makes the implicit bargain of education in return for future economic success harder for Millennials to believe in every day.

Recently Matt Segal, Executive Director of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) and Founder and National Co-Chair of the 80 Million Strong for Young Americans Job Coalition presented some ideas to the House Education and Labor Committee on what Congress could do to address this challenge.

He advocated increased entrepreneurial resources be made available to youth; Senate action on the student debt reform bill recently passed by the House; more access to public service careers through internships and loan forgiveness programs; and the creation of “mission critical” jobs in such fields as health care, cyber-security and the environment that would tap the unique talents of this generation. Coupled with the recent passage of the Kennedy Serve America Act, enacting these initiatives would demonstrate that Democrats are serious about improving the economic situation of Millennials and, at the same time, provide organizing ammunition in the 2010 campaign.

Of course no economic program can ignore the impact of health care on this generation’s—and America’s—economic well being. Many of the entry-level jobs young people seek and obtain come from employers who simply can’t afford to provide health care coverage under today’s system. Young adults between the ages of 19 and 29 represent nearly a third of all uninsured Americans, and two-thirds of those uninsured young people reported going without necessary medical care in 2007 because they could not afford to pay for it. As a result, polling has consistently indicated that a majority of young people support President Obama’s health care proposal, especially if it contains a public option to control costs. One of the more compelling components of the president’s plan for Millennials is that it would allow parents to cover their children through the family’s health insurance up to the age of 26 instead of the current limit of 19. And Millennials expect Congress to act. Only a third of Millennials, as compared with half of older generations, are concerned that the government will become too involved in health care.

Yet many pundits continue to perceive health care reform as an “old people’s issue,” likely to increase the turnout of seniors, but not Millennials, in the 2010 elections. Some have even suggested that Millennials will object to a health care system that limits the differential in premiums insurance companies can charge relatively healthy young people vs. older, less well adults. But this theoretical inter-generational transfer of wealth is not likely to stir up much opposition among Millennials. Unlike the Baby Boomers of four decades ago, Millennials do not speak to their elders across a generation gap, but have actually formed strong and enduring bonds with their parents and come to the public arena determined to find solutions that work for people of all ages. Already, Young Americans for Health Care Reform has accumulated 1200 fans on Facebook since the group was formed less than a month ago.

If Congressional Democrats can successfully negotiate passage of a health care reform bill that provides cost-effective coverage for the 30% of Millennials who currently are not insured, Democrats will have another major arrow in their quiver going into the 2010 election.

Millennials, like their GI Generation great grandparents in the 1930s, are facing economic challenges that caught them by surprise and for which no one prepared them. But Millennials aren’t looking for a handout or sympathy. Instead, in the “can do” spirit of their generation, they are organizing to overcome the challenges created for them by their elders. It’s time for Democrats in Congress to recognize these concerns and the loyalty of a generation that identifies as Democrats over Republicans by a 2:1 margin. One way to accomplish this is by passing meaningful health care reform while helping to create new pathways to economic opportunity, especially for young people who are just entering the work force. Doing so now, as the battle for 2010 shapes up, will help energize the newest and most loyal element of the Democratic Party’s 21st Century coalition, the Millennial Generation.

Morley Winograd is one of the authors of Millennial Makeover, one of the New York Times' favorite books of 2008.

One of my fav Millennial writers Morley Winograd and Michael Hais had a great Millennial Fact Sheet article come out this week that dispels some annoyingly frequent assumptions about young people - particularly ones about politics.

Here are a few of my personal favorites

"2. Millennials are narcissistic, self-indulgent kids who think they are entitled to everything. False: Millennials have a deep commitment to community and helping others, putting this belief into action with community service activities. Virtually all Millennial high school students (80%) participate in a community service activity. Two decades ago when all high school students were Gen-Xers, only a quarter (27%) did so."

Over and over again I hear people, sometimes even online marketing people, talk about the narcissism of young people for creating a MySpace page or a Facebook profile. How totally disconnected! There's no where else to go anymore... Our world is too spread out, too dangerous, and too focused on consumerism for young people to have a safe, close, free place to hang out. The one place that is available is the internet. FB and MS are like saying "hi... I'm Sarah... I like architecture and pictures of kittens..."

" 4. Millennials became Democrats and liberals because they are hero worshipers of Barack Obama. False: Millennials identified as Democrats and liberals well before Obama emerged as a major political force with significant name identification. In 2007, Millennials identified as Democrats over Republicans by 52% to 30% and as liberals over conservatives by 29% vs. 16% (the rest were moderate). At that time, Barack Obama’s name identification was barely 50%, well below that of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, his chief competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination.

5. Millennials will become more conservative as they age. False: Party identification and ideological orientation are formed when people are young and are retained as they age. Prior “civic” generations, with similar belief systems to Millennials, kept that philosophy throughout their lives. The only two generations that gave John Kerry a majority of their votes over George W. Bush in 2004 were the first sliver of Millennials eligible to vote and the last segment of members of the GI Generation, all of whom were at least 80 and many of whom were casting their final presidential vote.

I hear this a lot from "experts" in the campaign world and it makes me nuts. The one mistake is in thinking that Millennials are exactly the same as Gen Xers - its like people forget that "young people" change every 10 years and its a pretty substantial demographic fluctuation. The adage is that if you vote 3 times a row for the same party then you'll have a party member for life. Pretty big incentive for the national DNC, DCCC, and DSCC to do substantial youth outreach .... one would think...

"9. Millennials, like all generations, are rebels who are hostile to civic institutions and government. False: Millennials have significantly more positive attitudes toward government and its activities than older Americans. Millennials are much less likely to believe that if the government runs something, it is usually wasteful and inefficient (42% vs. 61%) or that the federal government controls too much of our daily lives (48% vs. 56%). They are much more likely to feel that government is run for the benefit of all (60% vs. 46%).

Contrary to the Ron Paul Revolution, young people luvz their government and they feel confident working within the process to affect change. This is why the idea of "taking to the streets" is lost on them ... much to Thomas Friedman's chagrin.

The one little tidbit I didn't know but I delighted in, is that "as early as 2006, two years before Barack Obama’s candidacy, more than twice as many Millennials had voted for president than had voted on American Idol." Makes me curious about the general demographic of American Idol ... is it all middle aged white women or something?

The following is a guest post by Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Winograd and Hais are fellows of NDN and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008. --Mike

Seventy percent of Iranians are under thirty. These young people have twice the presence in the population of that country as America’s largest generation, Millennials (born 1982-2003), has in ours.

In the immediate aftermath of Iran's disputed presidential election, text messages became the tool for organizing post-election protests. Hundreds of thousands of tweets provided more, if not clearer, information about what was happening each day than traditional media. Opposition and government Facebook pages poured out dueling messages on the Internet. It suddenly seemed as if not only had American democratic values erupted on the barren landscape of a theocratic society, but also that young people’s technological capabilities might produce a regime change that no one anticipated. Clay Shirky announced, “This is it. This is the big one. This is the first revolution that has been catapulted onto a global stage and transformed by social media.” And the notion that this was a “Twitter Revolution” quickly became the meme for the entire series of post-election events.

But then the entrenched establishment fought back using the very same Internet- enabled technologies to isolate, spy on, and ultimately shut down the resistance. Thanks to new capabilities recently acquired from two European telecom companies—Nokia and Siemens—as part of their country’s upgrade of its mobile networks, the Iranian government was able to monitor the flow of online data in and out of sites like Twitter and Facebook, from one central location. The Iranians deployed a technology called deep packet inspection, first created to put a firewall around President Clinton’s emails in 1993, to deconstruct digitized packets of information flowing through the government’s telecom monopoly that might contain what they considered to be seditious information before reconstructing and sending it on to destinations they were also able to track and monitor. The result was a 90% degradation in the speed of Internet communications in Iran at the height of the unrest, and a previously unseen capability to determine who the government’s enemies were down to the individual IP address level.

Once again the world learned that technology does not arrive with a built-in set of values that makes it work either for good or evil. Even though Internet technology has many virtues, it is not inherently liberating or enslaving. Instead how it is used is determined by the values of those who access it. Libertarians celebrate the individual empowerment that the Internet makes possible. But even though Ron Paul supporters used the technology to take on the Republican establishment in 2008, the end result that year was the election of a group-oriented, civic-minded candidate, Barack Obama, whose campaign used the very same technology to guide millions of people to undertake a collective agenda of change that Libertarians certainly did not “believe in.”

The difference between what libertarians wanted and what Obama achieved came from the generational attitudes and beliefs of Millennials, Obama’s key supporters, not from the technology that generation was so adept at using.

One of the founders of generational theory, Neil Howe, points out that the under-30 population of Iran grew up during a religious awakening in the Islamic world that came later than America’s “cultural revolution” of the 1960s. As a result, Iranian youth resembles Generation X, Americans now in their 30s and 40s. Like our own Gen X, these young Iranians are “pragmatic, individualistic, commercial, and anti-ideological (which is why they hate Ahmadinejad so much).”

Those values make them anti-establishment in the current crisis. We are fortunate that they feel deeply enough about the potential of democracy to risk their lives to “tear down that power structure,” to paraphrase what President Ronald Reagan, Generation X’s political hero, said in a different context. But now the central task of our government must be to translate that democratic impulse into a deeper belief in Millennial generation values, such as the power of consensus, the peaceful resolution of differences and the need to find win-win solutions to our problems.

That is why the President Obama's recent Cairo speech should be the bedrock on which America continues to engage large young Muslim populations throughout the world, including Iran:

“No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy."

This statement has the potential to become a governing creed for a new generation of young Muslims. If they come to have, as President Obama does, “an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose,” then the power of 21st century technologies will be used to advance the cause of freedom in Iran, rather than suppressing it. But tweeting those words won’t make it happen. Believing in them will.

Morley Winograd and Michael Hais have an interesting post up at their blog, Millennial Makeover. Winograd and Hais argue that MTV is finally understanding that the youth of today look and act nothing like the youth of yesteryear, er- 1981.

The network, long known for cynical and vapid content, has suddenly understood the importance of being earnest. Booze and bikinis are out. Do-good singers and hard-working art students are in.

MTV acknowledged that its programming had become out of step with the progressive, service-oriented values of today's youth, the Millennial Generation. "It was very clear we were at one of those transformational moments, when this new generation of Millennials [born between 1982 and 2003] were demanding a new MTV," a channel executive explained.

Winograd and Hais examine the differences between the Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials through the lens of movies that were popular during the time period in which each generation came of age. (The Devil Wears Prada is a far cry from The Graduate.)

The point Winograd and Hais make and that I've echoed for a few months now is that the Republican Party won't have a presence in national politics for decades to come unless it stops seeing youth as inconsequential and unworthy of a long-term investment; such a view restricts the GOP from understanding the general attitudes and values inherent in Millennials, who will continue to deliver a major shock to the political process over the next twenty years. And while this GOP extinction might seem great for progressive activists like us, a lack of Republican competition would actually relieve the pressure on Democrats to continue funding and supporting innovative youth outreach programs well into the future.

Curtis Gans, a respected election expert operating out of American University, has a completely bizarre report out today on the lack of causation or correlation between primary turnout and turnout in the general election. I say bizarre because the report, which contains 4 pages of data, quickly devolves into 6 pages of "commentary" that only tangentially focuses on the relationship between primary and general election turnout. Instead, it reads more like a screed on what Gans thinks is wrong with our country and political system in 2008.

Gans is right when he says that there is no relationship between national primary turnout and national general election turnout. Of course there isn't. There are too many factors - such as how competitive the primary process is that year, whether one or both parties have competitive contests, how long those contests drag on, etc. - that can tip the balance for their to be any direct relationship.

But that's an overly broad question. The more interesting question to ask would have been "is there a direct correlation between primary and GE turnout for specific demographics?" For instance, if young voters turnout in record numbers in a Democratic primary, do we then see record numbers of Democratic youth turning out in the General Election? Or, if evangelical christians vote in record numbers in a Republican primary, do they also vote in record numbers in the General Election? And do those trends repeat throughout history? That would be useful information, and might give us a better idea what to expect in November, but Gans isn't asking those questions.

More important to me at the moment, though, is Gans' attempts to "debunk" the idea that there is a civically engaged demographic called the "Millennial Generation." To the extent that Gans is respected and is often quoted in the media, this deserves a response.

There Is No Millennial Generation: The large-scale involvement of college resident and educated youth is one of the most heartening aspects of this year’s nominating process. But the conclusions some have drawn from that participation—that we have a new politically engaged generation—is simply not supported by the facts.

Those involved this year are a fraction of the youth population and were brought in by the uniqueness of Obama’s candidacy—precisely because he seemed to offer something different than the politics they had been eschewing. They would not have stayed in—at least in anywhere near the numbers which have participated in the primaries—had Obama not won the nomination. They won’t stay in if he’s not elected and their interest and engagement won’t be sustained if he does not live up to the promise of his candidacy once in office.

What Gans ignores here is the fact that increased in youth turnout did not start with Obama, nor are they totally attributable to his candidacy. The youth vote increased significantly in 2004, and again in 2006 (pdfs). In neither case was Barack Obama on the ballot, nor did he have an active campaign operating that might boost turnout. This is not to say that Obama himself, and his candidacy, are not attracting new voters in greater numbers than we might have otherwise seen. But recent trends all suggest that youth participation in the 2008 election would have increased even without Obama's candidacy.

Gans' argument also neglects the fact that increased youth turnout is not a spontaneous event, but rather the result of hard work put out by many thousands of activists engaging in electoral politics, or the "electoral specialists" as the National Conference on Citizenship's 2008 Civic Health Index (pdf) calls them. It is due to the countless hours in the field spent door knocking and peer to peer organizing that was responsible for vote increases among young people in 2004 and 2006, and it is Obama's adoption of those peer to peer tactics that has made his campaign similarly successful among youth not just in polls, but at the voting booth.

Gans, of course, disagrees. He thinks that 2004 and 2006 were a result of anti-Bush sentiment. In the words of the great Jeffrey Lebowski: "That's just like, your opinion, man." Gans has no data to back up that claim, only his gut. But there is plenty of data to show that young voter outreach programs were of great effect at increasing turnout in 2004 and 2006. What's more, with the notable exception of Pennsylvania, every swing state targeted heavily by youth vote organizers in 2004 overperformed the national turnout average for young voters (pdf), climbing as high as 71% in Minnesota and 65% in Wisconsin. How does Gans explain that? Was anti-Bush sentiment greater in these swing states than in other states? Or did the targeted outreach actually have an impact?

Gans does try to answer that question:

The involvement of middle-class educated youth this year is not an isolated phenomenon. There is a reservoir of idealism, hope and a willingness to engage that has been part of every generation. In my lifetime, some of this group were madly for Adlai, others were engaged by the youth and energy of John F. Kennedy, still others formed the foot soldiers of the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements and came clean for Gene (McCarthy) in New Hampshire’s primary campaign. They also were, for about eight months, enticed by the policy wonkishness on issues they cared about of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, were taken for about a month or two by the 2000 candidacy of John McCain and the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean and came out in force in the battleground states against President Bush through the proxy of working for Sen. John Kerry.

So if I read that last bit right, young people aren't involved except when they are, but then it's only because their motives are in the wrong place? That's just rampant speculation and Gans has no data with which to backup his claims

I also disagree with Gans' implication that the kind of engagement we're seeing now is the same as it ever was among "middle class educated youth." While political participation is still not where it should be, young people today are more engaged in many aspects of civic and community life than Gen X and Boomers. As the NCOC Civic Health Index points out, that involvement just takes different forms in response to radically different times. From the NCOC report:

The Millennials so far appear to be considerably more civically engaged than their immediate predecessors, “Generation X.” The voting turnout of young adults (ages 18-29) almost doubled in the 2008 primaries and caucuses compared to the most recent comparable year (2000). There were also substantial youth turnout increases in 2004 and 2006. Youth volunteering rates are higher in the 2000s than they were in the 1990s.

Compared to the Baby Boomers when they were young adults, Millennials are somewhat more likely to volunteer. They are less likely to vote and to participate in face-to-face civil society, as reflected by questions about attending meetings, belonging to groups, and attending religious services. Declines in face-to-face engagement occurred before the widespread use of the Internet; but clearly, today’s youth have new opportunities for online interaction. Overall, if we compare Millennials to previous generations when they were young, the Millennials appear more engaged than Generation X and engaged in different ways from the Boomers.

The NCOC report concedes that Millennials are not as directly involved in politics as they could/should be, and not as engaged in politics as Boomers were when they were young, but the trends are all favorable in this respect, and the report points to the internet as a growing tool through which to bridge the participation gap between "middle class, college educated kids" and non-college, lower income youth.

Ultimately, Gans comes off as nothing more than a crank, pining for the good old days. Is there any other way to read something like this?

The difference between the idealistic activism of the 1950s and 1960s and the activism of the 1980s and later is that the earlier generations were politically involved and interested and stayed in political activity even when their causes did not meet with success or their leaders showed feet of clay. They did so because there was a totally different ethos in America then. Schools were dominated by the ideas of John Dewey who made educated citizens a major educational aim. Parents discussed politics in the home. The media was more concentrated and more purposive. There was much less cynicism. The institutions underlying democracy were strong and well-aligned. People could and did work together across partisan and ideological lines. Great things were accomplished, people felt good about politics and government and wanted to be a part of that enterprise and believed their participation mattered.

Those who were briefly active in the 1980s and later did not stay involved. They didn’t because there is and has been for some time a totally different ethos. Participation in institutions has declined sharply. Media are fragmented and cynical. Politics tends to be a bad word, with most of the young having a dim view of the enterprise. Government is hamstrung by ideological polarization fed by political parties that are misaligned. Schools no longer train for citizenship (although some promote service which is not the same thing and does not have a carry-over effect to politics). Community has been eroded. Negativity in large volume dominates the conduct of politics. Civility is all too often absent. There is simply no grounding for a new engaged generation to emerge.

Yes, Generation X withdrew from politics and community, becoming a highly individualized generation for most of the 80s and 90s. Yes, our political and media system is in sorry shape. But study after study (Generation We, Millennial Makeover, Progressive Politics of the Millennial Generation, Harvard IOP Surveys) all show Millennials to be an optimistic, not cynical, generation. They show Millennials to be believers in community action and their own ability create change. The show Millennials to be believers in the responsibility and potential of government to do good in this country, even if they have little faith in the current actors occupying positions of power. In short, they portray Millennials as a generation with the self confidence, desire and new technologies to reshape the very broken systems Gans identifies.

Against all that, Gans throws out a statistics-free rant about the "good old days" that has but one message: "You kids get off my lawn."

• Hat tip to Tony Cani, the Political Director of the Young Democrats, for catching the most cynical youth story of the week. From the conservative Washington Times:
  

  Republicans can keep young voters who support Democratic nominee Barack Obama at home by giving their young relatives and friends gift cards to iTunes and Starbucks that are good only on Nov. 4, election day.

  “That’s the only way to keep them away from the polls,” said Kellyanne Conway, president of The Polling Company, during a breakfast with the delegates at their hotel near the University of Minnesota.

  Tony has the appropriate response.

• That last gem comes courtesy of a speaker addressing the Virginia delegation at the Republican National Convention. But I don't think the Virginia GOP needs any help suppressing the youth vote, they're already doing a bang-up job of that, according to this New York Times article. A local registrar near Virginia Tech is improperly and inaccurately threatening students with the loss of financial aid if they register to vote in the state.
• Meanwhile, in another swing state, the Ohio Secretary of State is actually doing her job and is taking precautions to prevent voter suppression at the polls in November.
• Everyone should read Glenn Greenwald's post about why McCain and Palin can lie with impunity on the stump.
• On September 18th, the Center for American Progress is hosting an event on Millennials and how they will reshape the electorate. RSVP here.
• AEI has their own event on Millennials as well. Let's say that their take is not so optimistic. Details and RSVP here.
• The WE Campaign, 1 Sky and Green for All are teaming up for a day of action to promote Green Jobs Now. So far there are 232 events scheduled for September 27th.
• YP4 is offering an online course (Free!) on how to fight the Religious Right. The course begins Sept. 15th.
• YP4 is also recruiting a new class of Fellows. Find out more here.
• The New York Times has an interesting piece on the state of the money-race, including an interesting bit about Obama donors collecting checks that will go to the state parties in Battlegrounds.

This is a guest post by Millennial Makeover authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. Originally published in The Politico. --Mike

The key to waging a successful presidential campaign by either Barack Obama or John McCain will be their ability to use their respective conventions to overcome generational tensions. What happens in Denver and the Twin Cities could give the nominees freedom to embrace the generational changes that will shape American politics for decades to come.

If the candidates pay proper attention to generational politics, each convention will begin with a nod to their party’s Boomers and then pivot away from the past to address, on the final night, new voters whose support they will need to win in November.

The candidates must take the lead in managing their party’s convention so that the ticket and its platform reflect the desire of the electorate to move beyond the cultural wars of the 1960s. Each party’s understanding of this generationally driven challenge will be evident in how it handles the iconic, Boomer figures demanding center stage at their conventions.

Obama, in an acknowledgement of the generational strains in his party, has agreed to Hillary Rodham Clinton's request to not only address the convention in prime time on Tuesday night, but to have her name placed in nomination the following night. In return, he has gained the agreement of former president Bill Clinton to, in effect, lead the Boomers in the Democratic Party to embrace and endorse Senator Obama's nomination on Wednesday night.

As tough as that challenge has been for Obama, the problem is more acute for John McCain. President Bush's job performance ratings are among the lowest of any president. But he remains popular with Boomer ideologues in the GOP, who are continually looking for signs that McCain has stayed from party orthodoxy. Any attempt to deny a sitting president the spotlight at their national convention, as Democrats did in keeping Lyndon Johnson from addressing their 1968 convention, will be met with cries of “I told you not to trust him” from Republican true believers.

It appears that McCain’s advisers have decided to throw cultural war red meat to the delegates with appearances by Bush and Vice President Cheney on Monday, in hopes that the electorate won’t pay too much attention until later in the week.

If history is any guide, the place where both candidates will be willing to make concessions to their party’s ideological base will be the party’s platform. Since this policy statement is debated early in the convention, with little penalty for abandoning a plank or two later in the campaign, platforms are the easiest way to throw a bone to ideological purists. The Generation X and Boomer Democratic blogosphere has previously attacked Obama for failing to adhere to hard left positions on post 9-11 issues and offshore oil drilling.

Similarly, a number of conservatives have condemned McCain's former positions on climate change, immigration, and campaign finance reform.

The choice each candidate must make is whether to use the platform debate to give the cultural warriors in their party a final opportunity to replay the political drama of the nation’s Boomer past or to use the platform debate as a “Sister Souljah” generational moment and decisively break with that kind of divisive politics.

In the end, however, there will be no better place for the two candidates to demonstrate their break with the politics of past generations than in their acceptance speeches.

The McCain campaign has signaled its intention to use their candidate’s story of personal sacrifice on behalf of the nation throughout the convention. This effort will likely culminate in an acceptance speech attempting to simultaneously distinguish his life’s experience from those of the Woodstock generation (“I was tied up at the time”) and arouse the passions of his party’s Boomer base.

The challenge, however, is how to do that that without awakening a set of related thoughts among Millennials about just how old and potentially out of touch with their generation he is. Millennials weren’t around for Woodstock, don’t care about it, and prefer that everyone “play nice” together. Passion displayed as anger turns them off. To capture a new and winning coalition in this campaign, McCain would be better off using his acceptance speech to underline his national security credentials based on a lifetime of service, both of which appeal greatly to Millennials.

Obama’s decision to deliver his acceptance speech before a large outdoor audience on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech comes with its own set of risks. Echoes of that remarkable speech are sure to arouse the passions of the liberal half of the Boomer generation. But, it will also remind viewers of the turmoil of the 60s that drove a majority of the nation to embrace the Republicans’ appeal for “law and order.”

Obama’s rhetoric will need to inspire a new generation to take the next steps toward achievement of King’s dream, without creating a backlash among the rest of the electorate that wasn’t enamored with the racial overtones of the Democratic primary campaign.

To succeed in November, both candidates will have to speak explicitly to the future and demonstrate that their campaign represents the hopes of a new generation. The country is waiting for a new leader with a new approach to guide it out of the Boomer briar patch in which it has been stuck since 1968. After the conventions, we will have a clearer idea who can best lead the country into a new era of American politics.

Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics published by Rutgers University Press.

• Marc Ambinder notes that for the first time, MTV will accept paid political advertisements. Gawker has the appropriately snarky response.
• Kevin Bondelli notes that SMS is one of the best tools for organizing rural youth.
• McCain has a Facebook App! Called "Pork Invaders," the game lets you sling vetos at unnecessary spending projects symbolized by big flying pigs. I can already envision the Democratic response - a Facebook App that lets you play wack-a-mole with McCain's lobbyist buddies.
• Speaking of campaign-related video games, does anyone else remember the Bush Game from back in 2004? Good times.
• Because I'm a geek and I already miss Battlestar Galactica, I'll post this essay on Why I'd Vote for Baltar. It's the new "I voted for Kodos."
• Facebook has finally surpassed MySpace in unique viewers per month.
• Michael Hais and Morley Winograd note that political coalitions are changing, but the pundits can't shake their old models.
• Student PIRGs report that lower interest rates beginning in July on Stafford Loans will save students thousands of dollars.
• The Seattle Times wonders if Obama will be able to help down-ballot candidates.
• At WireTap, Kristina Rizga has a few ideas about closing the participation gap between college and non-college youth.
• For those who couldn't attend, this was one of the highpoints of the PDF conference - Tracy Russo (former Edwards blogger) smacking down McCain internet advisor Mark SooHoo about McCain's understanding of the potential of the internet to transform governance:

• Finally, I'm wondering what y'all think of this Blogging Heads video about the political implications of Hip Hop:

• Pinch me because I think I'm dreaming, but "this year the youth vote will matter," declares the mainstream media. -Washington Post
• Road trip for Democracy. An oldy but goody organization from 2004 is gearing up to get to work in 2008. -Swing Semester

• Next Generation is Reshaping Politics Through Social Networks. An interview with Morley Winograd of Millennial Makeover. -San Jose Mercury News
• ABC News notes that the age gap between the candidates is made larger as education levels rise. -ABC News
• Young, left-leaning religious voters are making social justice issues a part of their faith and politics. -St. Louis Today
• The New York Times Editorial page has an idea for helping cash-strapped students: reign in the out-of-control price of books and the monopoly that sets the prices. - New York Times