obama

The Panetta Institute of Public Policy, located at California State University - Monterey Bay, has sponsored an annual survey of U.S. college students since 2001.

This year's survey results revealed that students continue to be preoccupied with economic worries, though they bear much more positive attitudes this year than they have in the past. The executive summary is below:

• College students continue to express confidence in Barack Obama, and rate his performance much more highly than the country as a whole: 66% approve of his job performance, compared with 48% of the public in a contemporaneous survey. However, Obama’s approval rating has declined 9 points since his 2009 “honeymoon” period.
• While two-thirds (66%) believe that Barack Obama understands college students’ needs, just 21% say the same of Sarah Palin.
• College students continue to lean toward the Democrats as they consider the 2010 off-year elections, but there are clear warning signs for Democrats in this poll. Students are paying far less attention to this election than they were the historic 2008 presidential race (44% now, 82% in 2008) raising questions about college students’ likely turnout in November. Moreover, Democrats’ 12-point margin in the generic congressional ballot is much smaller than the 26-point lead they enjoyed at the same point in the 2006 cycle, and only slightly better than in 2002 (seven points) when Republicans elected congressional majorities.
• Students continue to view the economy as weak (83% say it is not so good or poor), and although they are not yet in the workforce, fully 40% say they have been personally affected a great deal or quite a bit by the economic downturn.
• Students’ confidence in their ability to find an acceptable job after graduation, which declined in 2009, remains low: 36% of college students, including 45% of seniors, are just somewhat or not confident that they will find an acceptable job. The 64% expressing confidence is the lowest level the survey has ever recorded.
• Interest in a government career continues to rise among college students, with 42% now very or fairly interested!the highest mark we have ever recorded. While the recession may have contributed to this rise, there has been a fairly steady increase in this measure over the past nine years.
• The survey reveals a startling gender gap when it comes to interest in an eventual run for office, with men being twice as interested in running for federal office than women (men 36%, women 18%), and also more interested in pursuing local or state office (men 43%, women 28%).
• College students’ support for same-sex marriage continues to grow, now reaching 65%, compared with just 52% in 2004.
• Students support a much more active government than the public as a whole, and they rate government’s performance much more highly. By 51% to 30%, they say government should do more to solve problems, while among the public overall, 43% say government should do more and 48% believe the government is doing too many things.

Students are ostensibly still liberal in their political views according to this survey, but their enthusiasm for participating in the 2010 midterms and supporting the Democratic Party is waning, along with their approval of President Obama. Not waning at all is their concern regarding their ability to find jobs after college.

This poll provides more evidence that the issue of job creation should be paramount for Democrats if they wish to attract college students (and young people) by this November.

Ari Matusiak is co-founder of Young Invincibles, a national campaign engaging young Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 in the health care reform debate and advocating on their behalf. www.YoungInvincibles.org.

Before Senator Kennedy passed away, he penned a letter to President Obama. It was a reflection on health care reform, “that great unfinished business of our society” and the cause of his life. He concluded that providing every American with quality and affordable health care was nothing less than a moral issue, one that spoke to the very “character of our country.”

Today, the question is whether the election in Massachusetts to replace Senator Kennedy penned the end of health care reform, or whether a Presidential summit will mark the beginning of a renewed push to pass the bill. If you believe the pundits and some elected officials, America has spoken: it is time to slow down, scale back or move on entirely.

But that is not what America is saying.

One year ago, two million people came to Washington to witness President Obama’s inauguration. They traveled from all over America and represented every color, creed and station in life. They were there to ratify a new direction for our country, one that recalled our better history, aspired to our full promise and laid the foundation for long-term prosperity. They were there aware of the challenges ahead, but filled with hope, expectation and a belief in change nonetheless.

Many of the people on the Mall were young Americans, a generation that embraced that spirit and conviction and made Barack Obama President. When there were setbacks during the campaign, we did not quit. We did not lower our sights. We doubled down, gave more and fought harder. There was too much to gain.

One special election in Massachusetts did not change all of that. Yes, some things are different from one year ago. The Democrats, who began this Congress with 58 seats in the Senate, not 60, now have 59, the largest majority either party has had in the upper chamber since 1979. The mood of the country is anxious. A bipartisan summit on reform looms.

But more things have stayed the same. There are still over 50 million Americans who do not have health insurance, living in fear of getting sick or living in pain because they already are. There are still 14,000 Americans who lose their coverage every day, many of them because they have lost their jobs in this recession. There are still millions of Americans who cannot get insurance in the first place because of a so-called “pre-existing condition.” It is still a broken system that determines access to care based on what job you hold or what income you have. It is still one that disproportionately impacts young Americans, the largest group of uninsured in the country.

The election in Massachusetts was not a referendum on health care reform. How could it have been? Massachusetts is the one state that provides universal coverage. It is a system that 68 percent of its residents support and is the model for the current reform efforts in Washington. No. The election in Massachusetts was a referendum on the status quo: an expression of frustration one year later with the pace of change. That is why independents and some Democrats went the other direction. That is why 85 percent of young voters stayed home.

Change is not easy. It comes only as a result of persistent struggle, unwavering conviction and a willingness to take risk. That is its character. In 2008, young Americans fought for this moment – this chance to make change. We believed we were sending leadership to Washington with the character to persist, stand strong and deliver for us all.

We are still waiting. What happens now on health care reform will determine whether that belief was justified. The next step cannot be incrementalism. It certainly cannot be the deathly silence that has pervaded the issue the past few weeks. The process – be it a summit, a bipartisan negotiation or reconciliation – is the means, not the end. We want results.

This is not the time to slow down or scale back. This is the time to double down, give more and fight harder. This is the time for leadership. Open discussion and debate must come with urgency and commitment. What we do now will define the character of our country. It will determine whether we have the character to deliver on change. One year ago, young Americans believed we had it. Now is the time for Washington to prove us right.

The White House announced today that the President will be speaking at a High School Commencement. "Race to the Top" is a competition - one school will be selected from applicants to receive a visit from the President. Principals of public high schools can apply for the "Commencement Challenge" online.

Six schools will be selected from the applicants by the White House and Department of Education. They will be posted on whitehouse.gov and the public will have the chance to vote for three to move forward. The President himself will choose the winning school from among these three finalists.

The application includes several essay questions and a video submission, giving local administrators the chance to get their students and teachers involved in the process of applying.

The White House has also set up a Facebook page specifically for "Race to The Top".

Pretty cool stuff, I think. High School students should let their administrators know about this.

Earlier today President Obama answered questions submitted through CitizenTube via the White House Live Facebook application.

I had hoped to have the video from the question and answer session to embed here, and have been waiting for it since CitizenTube hours ago claimed that it would be available shortly, but unfortunately it is not yet posted. (I'll add it once it is, whenever that may be).

I was pleased for the most part with the question selection, which included questions about Sudan (an area many Millennials are interested in), net neutrality, college affordability, and one from the Energy Action Coalition about clean energy and the environment.

As for the execution of the session, the video quality was a little choppy and would occasionally stop, requiring a refresh, but the chat/status posting discussion was a nice touch.

On the whole I think the session was a great move and fits in with my belief in taking your message to the places where people live and hang out (even virtually), and Facebook is certainly one of those places.

What are your thoughts about the President's Q&A over Facebook? What would you like to see next time?

I am super-excited about the White House finally doing some major promotion for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education programs. They just launched a campaign called “Educate to Innovate”. It’s goal is to increase participation in these programs, through the work of the federal government, major corporations, non-profits, and other organizations.

Although there weren’t a lot of specifics about the campaign, it was announced that the White House will be partnering with Time-Warner, Discovery Channel, Sesame Street, Sally Ride, and other organizations and science-engineering big shots to make sure that American students are excited about science and math.

The President says that it is the goal of his administration to ‘move to the top in science and math education’ and that this campaign will be part of working towards this goal. During his speech, he mentioned that private companies have already committed more than $260 million.

One exciting element of the campaign was an after school program with FIRST Robotics, which I’ve had some experience with. I know it to be a great opportunity for students to learn in a hands-on way…and it gives them somewhere to go, and something safe to do, during the after-school hours.

Another program being launched - an annual White House Science Fair for students. The President spoke about how NCAA athletes visit the White House, and so should young scientists and engineers who are finding success in their fields.

The President spoke about the importance of hard work for students, support from parents, and a strong basic education system to work along with these specialized STEM programs. He told a brief story about meeting with the Mayor of Shanghai, where he learned of how teachers in his city were treated – with reverence and respect. There is no problem recruiting them because they are payed nearly as much as an average doctor or lawyer, which of course makes perfect sense.

Students from a local high school demonstrated a robot they built as part of a STEM program…and the President was genuinely interested. I feel like this program will be a great step forward in the Obama Administration’s Education Policy and I hope it succeeds in getting students excited about STEM and providing them with the knowledge to innovate for the future.

The White House Blog did a post about the program and Education Secretary Arne Duncan took questions from the online community. Here is the full text of the President’s remarks.

Back in May I wrote a long article about Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the need to do justice to our gay and lesbian military heroes. As of today, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is still in effect, and activists from across the country marched together in Washington to support equality.

At the HRC dinner President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to end DADT, yet many activists are skeptical, and with good reason. As I discussed in my article, the gay and lesbian community has often been promised things from elected officials that they supported, only to have those items pushed back, ignored, and sometimes even opposed because of fear of the right wing.

The Millennial Generation overwhelming supports equality. The servicemembers who are being victimized by the DADT policy, which includes straight women, are mostly members of this generation. The government asks American youth to risk their lives at war, yet continues to disrespect the service of so many.

The country is ready to end this policy, and every day that the administration postpones action more young patriots will suffer.

My parents teach at a rural Oklahoma High School. The entire district has around 500 students. Many schools in the region and across the nation have decided not to show the President's Speech to America's Students on Tuesday. I'm proud to say my that my school is doing what's right - they're incorporating the speech into class curriculum.

My dad didn't vote for Barack Obama (despite my best efforts to sway him). He doesn't support many of his policies and he makes no secret about it. But when he found out that the President was planning to address the nation's students, there was no question about whether to show it or not. It was just the natural thing to do - the President of our Nation wants to address students, just like others have before.

So Dad was surprised when school districts nearby decided not to show the speech. He was surprised when Conservatives in the media criticized the President harshly about what Dad sees as a non-issue. He was surprised when Oklahoma legislators started accusing the President of attempting to indoctrinate young people. But what really iced the cake was when parents started calling his school to complain.

"Are you sure this is constitutional?"

"Doesn't the Constitution prohibit this sort of thing?"

"I don't want my child brainwashed."

"Will students be forced to watch?"

"SOCIALISM!"

"Will my child be counted absent if I take them out of school?"

Luckily, the administration backed my him up. Students will be going to specific classrooms to watch the speech. Those who don't want to view it will be sent to another classroom to work on assignments or study. Those who don't come to school Tuesday will be counted absent.

Many students don't receive any sort of support at home. There isn't anyone encouraging them, pushing them forward, and congratulating them for their successes. And for minority students, there often isn't any sort of role model or figure in their lives to prove that they can do whatever they want, with a little hard work. So I'm glad those students will have the chance to listen to the President speak directly to them. It's not going to be about votes, health care reform, or anything else political. It's about encouraging students to stay in school, get good grades, and work hard. What's wrong with that?

I'm proud of my rural Oklahoma school district for making the right decision and I'm proud of my barely-Democratic Dad, too. For him, this was an easy decision...It was just common sense.

Ezra Klein riffs off a new book released by James Monrone and David Blumenthal on health care. I agree with both him and the authors that in 2010, Democrats need to focus on the voters on the progressive base. First, some backfill with Klein quoting Monroe on the topic of the 1994 midterm turnout:

Go back and look at the midterm tsunami that swept the Democrats out of office the last time. The turnout for that wave was just 36 percent. Moderate, fence sitting independents don't vote in midterm elections with a 36 percent turn out.

What really happened back in 1994? The Republican base — jubilant, mobilized and angry — turned out. The Democratic base — dispirited, disenchanted and demobilized — stayed home. As Democrats ponder which way to go in this latest round, they ought to read the political lessons more carefully: Short-term
electoral success rests with the base, the people who got excited about "change we can believe in." Long-term electoral success rests in designing and pushing through a program that then grows very popular.

And now Klein's analysis (emphasis mine):

That's well-phrased: The political danger is not just that a failure on health-care reform will anger the electorate. It will also change the composition of the electorate. Dispirited Democrats will stay home. Energized Republicans will press their advantage. Add in that the wave of young voters who were energized by Obama's campaign probably aren't going to turn out for the midterm election anyway, and you're looking at a pretty unfriendly landscape.

Young voter turnout, was one point lower in 2006 than in 1994, but the fact to really care about is that 2006 was actually an increase in midterm participation. First. Time. Ever. Ezra Klein is no slouch; this guy knows his wonk material. But bringing the negativity to a demographic that really liked the "Change" and "Hope" slogans is counterproductive and a poor strategy. That is, unless throwing in the towel is your thing. In a large part, this blog and the book Mike wrote are dedicatd to the yes we can philosophy. Not for Obama, but for the future of Millennials and our own capacity to take control of our political destiny.

Klein might have missed the analysis by Stu Rothenberg, which Mike blogged about last month, that basically calls for "Democrats to maintain the interest of the youth vote and African Americans." (The constituents who brought the excitement, energy and the votes to the Obama campaign.)

This sounds familiar, doesn't it? That's because it is the exact same analysis produced by Obama/DNC Pollster Cornell Belcher as a sort of "exit interview" on Howard Dean's tenure at the DNC.

Rothenberg goes on to point out that young voter turnout tends to drop precipitously during midterm elections (which is true), however he fails to note that 2006 was the first midterm election in decades in which youth turnout increased, and that young voters swung critical races including the Montana and Virginia Senate races (pdf).

Even party leaders like Chris Van Hollen have talked about the importance of young voters.

So, there's a lot of talk about the youth vote in 2010. What Ezra Klein probably also knows, and perhaps why he so easily slights the youth vote, is that he may know that the DCCC isn't doing youth outreach. Remember that youth turnout went up by three percentage points from 2002 to 2006; that's massive, and there's room for growth. Youth groups can't be the only ones doing field work; their budgets aren't what they used to be. The DCCC needs to step it up and put their money where their mouth is, because that is the path to victory in 2010. Youth outreach today is about winning in 2010 and the future. We'd much rather see our future majority sooner rather than later.

Analysts are still trying to measure the impact of social media on the 2008 election. Some are resorting to non-random sampling [gasp!]. The Illinois State University student paper covers one such study.

A Kansas State University study by three graduate students finds that the 18 to 24 year old demographic became increasingly politically active during the 2008 U.S. Election season due to the use of new media, but were not necessarily more politically knowledgeable.

The study surveyed more than 160 undergraduate students, with no indication of their political party, about their use of traditional media as well as new media sources, such as Twitter or YouTube, to obtain information about the presidential campaign.

The sample size is very small here, although the focus of the study is interesting. Political knowledge is a messy metric when it is conflated with current events and we will be unable to gauge the relevance of this measure without the survey instrument.

The study also found that most students were not politically knowledgeable, with no idea of whether or not the student was a Democrat or Republican. Darnisha Monson, junior English education major, found herself to be one of the many students who became actively involved in the 2008 election.

This isn't surprising since young people who are new to the electoral process are still trying to find their way through the political landscape. Thus, it behooves partisans to outreach to youth during this exploratory period - it will be more difficult to persuade them to switch political parties later in life.

Now comes my favorite part of this article: an academic living in the university bubble and seemingly ignorant about it.

"That is the big question," Bradley said, "How do we get [college students] to turn out numbers in an election that is not tied directly to electing a president?"

This is totally not the big question. As we've written about here on FM, and as duly researched by CIRCLE, it's the college students we don't have to worry about. There is something about going to college, whether it be the networks or the the learning that aids these young people in navigating the political process. It doesn't matter that it takes time in some cases; the point is that youth with at least come college experience will be more engaged than those with any college. So, the big question is, if you care about realizing a full, participatory democracy is how do we reach the many young voters who don't attend college at all; they are the most likely to not vote and to not be civically engaged on a range of measures. As for the other part of his question, it is important to think about how to turnout voters during non-presidential cycles (one way might to be encourage more young people to run for elected office, especially the local level, as suggested by Kevin).

Professor Bradley continues to miss the mark with this:

"It is my job as a professor to figure out how to get your generation tuned into local politics, Bradley said.

"College students have a very short attention span so it is my job to keep [college students] interested... you are not going to learn."

Again, see the above retort. Additionally, it shouldn't the job of a professor to teach about civic engagement - it should be done at the high school level. This means we can reach as many young people before they leave mandatory schooling. At the Netroots Nation 2009 youth caucus meeting, I brought up the point that we (youth and civic organizations) are doing the work of the government for them. We educate young people about civic engagement, when that should be the aim of high school curriculum. What makes it so troublesome for us is that we spend time, money and staff on teaching the basics of democracy. If we had comprehensive civic education in high schools, then we could focus on actually persuading and informing citizens about specific issues that take a bit of expertise to understand.

• Maegan Carberry of HuffPo argues that Obama's health care reform plans indicate the birth of millennial politics.
• The stats are in--teens aren't tweeting. Check out this theory explaining why they aren't.
• Check out another article on the tough job market for today's young people.
• Christian Science Monitor can't seem to get a grip on the context of the youth vote.
• Post-9/11 GI Bill: Providing the Opportunity Our Troops Have Earned.
• Boston Mayoral candidates are fighting for the youth vote.
• Check out this video on Textbooks4Change, an organization helping students raise money to repeal proposition 8.