Rapid Response

Last week I noted that the Wall Street Journal, NBC and MySpace released a joint poll in which they attempted to gauge the views of "new" and "lapsed" voters, who were defined as voters who had participated in the past, but skipped the 2004 election. At the time, I warned that there was a danger in making the mistake of equating these voters and the poll's results with the opinions of young voters.

Well, I just saw an MSNBC interview between Chuck Todd and Lee Brenner of MySpace in which both Todd and Brenner make this mistake multiple times during the segment. Brenner even goes so far as to suggest that the results of the poll accurately reflect the views of "students," a distinction made no where in the poll's methodology.

As I noted in my previous blog post, 45% of the survey respondents were over the age of 30. 39% of the sample was over 35 years of age. In my world, those don't count as young voters. The vast majority of the statistics discussed by Brenner and Todd make no distinction between those older and younger respondents in the poll, or between "new" and "lapsed" voters, who surely have different levels of interest and engagement. These respondents - and the results of this poll - shouldn't be equated with all young voters.

The WSJ/NBC/MySpace poll offered some unique information on new and lapsed voters. But that information can't be examined in a vacuum and it shouldn't be used to infer things about young voters generally. For a complimentary, and I think more accurate, look at what young voters are thinking this election cycle, I recommend the recent non-partisan poll released by Rock the Vote, Lake Research, and The Tarrance Group.

The Wall Street Journal, NBC and MySpace released a new poll today examining the attitudes of "new" and "lapsed" voters. The poll is unique in that it breaks out these two under-reported groups, however news coverage of the results by both The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC paint an overly grim picture of the potential turnout among these voters that is unsupported by the data.

In her WSJ story today on the poll, Sara Murray writes:

The survey, conducted by the Wall Street Journal, NBC News and the MySpace networking Web site, also found these voters have distinctly more positive impressions of Sen. Obama than any of the other three candidates atop the Democratic and Republican tickets.

But that hardly means the Obama campaign can count on them. When asked to rank their interest in the Nov. 4 election, just 49% said they were "very interested." By comparison, 70% of voters of all age groups said they were "very interested," according to a separate Journal/NBC News national poll taken a week ago.

Moreover, 54% of the new voters said they would definitely vote Nov. 4.

Murray is cherry picking her data here. Looking at the internals of the poll, respondents were asked to rank the likelihood of their voting on a scale of 1 - 10, with 10 being "definitely voting" and 1 being "definitely not voting." It's true that 54% responded with a 10, but what Murray leaves out is that 30% more respondents chose "8" or "9" - pretty high numbers on the scale. That means that 84% of respondents were very likely to vote. If you add in any respondents above "5", that number jumps 90%.

When it comes to interest in the election, Murray made the same editorial decision, including only respondents who answered with a "10" on a 10 point scale. Adding in the "8s" and "9s" again, and we see that 78% of respondents were very interested in the election, far higher than the 49% cited in the article.

In both instances, Murray uses only the most extreme levels of support in her examples. That had the effect of driving down the overall numbers and raised doubts about turnout among new and lapsed voters. While that may have fit her storyline, it was far from an accurate representation of the poll's findings.

Recognizing that we shouldn't automatically equate young voters with "new and lapsed" voters (though there is much overlap and both the WSJ and MSNBC blur the distinction), I want to point out that when you add in the additional response data, the broad trends here echo polling released by Rock the Vote in recent weeks. In a survey of young voters conducted in September, Rock the Vote found that 87% of young voters were following the election either "closely" or "very closely." They also found that 86% of young voters were either "likely" or "extremely likely" to vote this year. These numbers are almost identical to those found in the WSJ/NBC poll once you add in the very clearly interested respondents cut out of the article.

What's more, when discussing both statistics, Rock the Vote and their pollster Celinda Lake took a decidedly different view of their meaning. In a recent conference call presentation of the poll, Lake noted that the results are at record highs and are backed by favorable trends from the previous elections. In 2006, only 69% of young people stated that they were likely to vote. The results that November? A Democratic landslide in which young voters played a key role in the elections of Jon Tester, Jim Webb, and Joe Courtney. Just this past February, Rock the Vote found that 80% of young people were interested in the election. The corollary at the polls? In primary after primary contest we saw youth turnout double, triple, and even quadruple over turnout from previous years.

Murray's interpretation takes none of this recent history into account (emphasis mine):

These new voters are being closely watched by both political parties this fall. Regular Wall Street Journal/NBC News national polls indicate that these first-time and returning voters could account for between 10% and 13% of the November electorate.

The findings of the survey underscore the opportunities and the hurdles that face the Obama campaign. It has spent millions of dollars to register voters, as well as on plans to get them to the polls.

Traditionally it has been highly difficult for campaigns to get newly registered voters, especially young ones, to show up on Election Day.

It's not hard to get young people to show up on election day, it's just that neither party, and only very few candidates, ever put in the requisite work to do so. What we know from past election is that peer to peer outreach works in getting new voters to the polls - particularly young, first time voters. We know that such strategies have successfully increased the youth vote in the last three election cycles. And we know that Barack Obama is better than any candidate in decades at getting those voters to the polls.

The millions of dollars the Obama campaign sunk into youth registration and GOTV were well spent, and the campaign has reaped the rewards of those investments ever since new, mostly young, voters propelled him to victory in the Iowa caucuses.

The explosion of new voters isn't a hurdle for Obama, it's an opportunity. The fact that these unlikely and first time voters are so excited about this election is a chance to reach out our hand and welcome them into the political process. The Obama campaign understands this. Young organizers, who have worked for 5 years to bring the youth vote to the forefront understand this. Some people in the media still don't get it.

Over the weekend, Craig linked to an open letter to young voters written by Jonathan Darman for Newsweek entitled "Ask Not What You Can Do for Barack Obama, but What Barack Obama Can Do For You." The piece is somewhat unique in the current media narrative in that, rather than announce young voters' emergence as a new power block, it challenges them to wield that new-found power to serve their own interests.

The cynic in me says that this is all very mavericky, and makes for great copy if you are trying to scoop competitors and "offer a fresh take." Darman even has the street cred to write this (he's a Millennial), and enough snark to appeal to the Gawker set.

And really, if we're honest, that's all you've done this year—show up. You voted (umm … you're supposed to vote). You didn't get hung up on a candidate's race (umm … you're not supposed to care about race). Your one lasting gift to political posterity this year: the text message. Greatest Generation, watch your back.

The problem is that his piece is neither aware of the political realities surrounding the youth vote, nor does it offer a coherent theory of change by which young voters could answer his call to arms. Without those, his open letter is just so much concern-trolling, a new form of the youth apathy narrative put out by the traditional media for so long. Whereas before we had "youth don't vote," now we are confronted with "youth vote, but . . . "

Darman's analysis falls short in a number of places:

1. He fails to realize that the youth vote is still in a politically fragile place, and it's power is not yet proven to the political class and media.
2. Darman identifies only policies youth should push, he does not identify any means by which such a push can/should occur. He fails to identify a vehicle for change. Perhaps this is because the youth vote has fewer institutions supporting its interests and through which it can push for its own self interests. Darman must know this, but calling attention to that and working through a theory of change would destroy the thesis of his letter.
3. Despite those difficulties, there are youth organizations beginning to work on this problem. Darman is unaware of or completely ignores their work.

Taking these point by point:

Youth Turnout: Darman operates as if the youth vote is a completely proven and viable constituency with equal power to other, older constituencies. This is not true. While I agree that young voters are turning out in record numbers and we will continue to do so, not everyone is convinced of this within the political class and the media. What's more, the youth vote will sink or swim with the Obama campaign. If Obama wins, the youth vote's place as a powerful constituency will be solidified. If he loses, it will instantly collapse. That's why this quote by Darman is so disturbing:

I do not mean to suggest that asking questions of Obama will help him get elected. Some of them will probably hurt his chances. An Obama defeat is an outcome many of you cannot fathom and most of you would like to avoid. But if our generation fails to hold Obama to a higher standard in the final weeks of this campaign, it will most likely get what it deserves: a decidedly ordinary President Obama and a new generation's descent into cynicism. This would be a tragedy, for, in truth, there is one thing that makes our generation special. We still have the power to believe.

How nihilistic. If Obama wins, our generation descends into cynicism. If he loses, we "get to believe," but no political operative or journalist will ever take the youth vote seriously again.

While I agree with Darman's overarching point that we need to hold Obama accountable, our ability to do so increases an order of magnitude after election day when 1) our ability to organize and turnout and deliver votes is proven; and 2) when there is actual legislation on the table to organize for or against. Right now the youth vote has enormous potential political power. It's not until November 5th, after an Obama win, that such power becomes real. In many respects, Darman's letter puts the cart before the horse.

Policy vs. Pathways: Dorman identifies a laundry list of policies on which young voters must hold Barack Obama accountable if we are to be considered "truly engaged and credible" as a constituency. Yet he offers zero information on just how such accountability works. Worse, he writes as if young voters had the same avenues of expression and leverage available to them as older demographics.

There is no youth AARP. There are no lobbyists out there working day and night to advance the interests of young voters. There are no media stories about how taking a certain policy position will be politically dangerous for Obama with the youth vote. In short, young voters have zero leverage in this conversation. More so because, as I stated above, the youth vote will sink or swim with Obama. An Obama loss would be disasterous for the political power of young voters. With our interests so inextricably linked, it's hard to exert any leverage over the candidate.

Movement in the Making: This is not to say that some groups out there are not working on smart ways to organize in support of Obama and in support of a youth policy platform. Generation Vote, a collaboration of USSA, The League, Young People For, Choice USA, Center for Progressive Leadership, The Ruckus Society, Generation Change, Campus Camp Wellstone, the Hip Hop Caucus, Black Youth Vote, the Youth and Campus divisions of NAACP and Planned Parenthood, the Hip Hop Congress, Youth Speaks, the Youth Voter Coalition, and the Bus Federation recently released a youth policy agenda, for which they are calling for signatures of support. Power Vote, a project of the Energy Action Coalition, is currently collecting 1 million signatures behind a comprehensive energy reform package. So far they have collected almost 150,000 signatures.

I can also attest to the fact that there is much chatter in the youth vote world about beginning to organize around legislative priorities and a youth agenda come November 5th. Darman makes no reference to any of these activities in his piece.

In closing, I also find it ironic that, when addressing a generation noted for it's sense of community, teamwork, and selflessness, he would choose selfishness and self-interest as the framework for his open letter. Perhaps the more constructive frame would have been "Ask not what Obama can do you for, but what you and Obama can do together."

Over at Salon's The War Room, Thomas Schaller is commenting on the same Nate Silver op-ed in the NY Post that Craig and I posted about. Reading his blog post I have to ask - did Tom Schaller even read past the first paragraph, because he totally misrepresents Silver's thesis (emphasis mine):

Silver throws a bit of cold water on the idea that the youth vote is something Democrats should be counting on this year. And history, as he points out, is on his side. But the dismal turnout numbers he cites are for the 18-to-24 subset of the youth vote, which is often grouped more broadly to include those 25 to 29, who register and turn out at higher rates. Still, even 18-to-29-year-olds rank lowest of any American age cohort in turnount.

Silver argues nothing of the kind, as I've written. While the subtitle of the piece presents young voters in a negative light, that subtitle was likely written not by Silver but by a conservative editor at the Post.

Here's what Silver has to say about the piece on his own blog:

In an article in today's New York Post, I argue that Barack Obama actually does have a pretty good likelihood of increasing youth turnout -- and that, moreover, such voters may be undercounted in the polls:

It doesn't sound like Silver is splashing cold water on anything. You can leave a comment for Schaller on the blog. I've already done so.

Just an FYI, the reason there is not yet a response to the Washington Post editorial about Obama posted here or on other sites is that the Washington Post demands that all letters to the editor or op-ed submissions be original and exclusive. Posting here or elsewhere would disqualify them from consideration. So unilt WaPo takes a pass, we've got to keep our writing under wraps.

However, I did write an essay for Powell's Books about a month and a half ago that made a very similar argument to the one I made in my Letter to the Editor. You can read it here.

An Op-Ed published yesterday in the Washington Post got the youth vote story completely wrong.

In addition to conveniently skipping over the last 7 years in youth organizing (the piece skips from 2000 straight to Iowa 2008), it gets a number of facts wrong and mostly traffics in old stereotypes from the 1990s.

I know that Rock the Vote, which bears the brunt of the author's criticism, is preparing a response, and I'm going to be writing a full response as well that addresses the factual errors and omissions in full. In the interest of timely rapid response, though, I just submitted a letter to the editor.

In the meantime, it looks like WireTap is live with the first response.

Regular readers know that we don't like Tom Friedman around here, mostly for reasons well-stated here. He has regularly criticized young people for not taking action on the issues of the day, typically defining action as "yelling and screaming on campus quads with witty signage." So I was surprised to read his column on climate change in this weekend's edition of the New York Times.

Last week, I also met with two groups of M.I.T. students who blew me away. One was the M.I.T. Energy Club, which was founded in 2004 by a few grad students discussing energy over beers at a campus bar. Today it has 600-plus members who have put on scores of events focused on building energy expertise among M.I.T. students and faculty, and “fact-based analysis,” including a trip to Saudi Arabia.

Then I got together with three engineering undergrads who helped launch the Vehicle Design Summit — a global, open-source, collaborative effort, managed by M.I.T. students, that has 25 college teams around the world, including in India and China, working together to build a plug-in electric hybrid within three years. Each team contributes a different set of parts or designs. I thought writing for my college newspaper was cool. These kids are building a hyper-efficient car, which, they hope, “will demonstrate a 95 percent reduction in embodied energy, materials and toxicity from cradle to cradle to grave” and provide “200 m.p.g. energy equivalency or better.” The Linux of cars!

They’re not waiting for G.M. Their goal, they explain on their Web site — vds.mit.edu — is “to identify the key characteristics of events like the race to the moon and then transpose this energy, passion, focus and urgency” on catalyzing a global team to build a clean car. I just love their tag line. It’s what gives me hope:

“We are the people we have been waiting for.”

Shocking as it is, Friedman is giving props to young people for organizing effectively around the issue of climate change on the campus of MIT. Not by waving signs, but by building shit that actually prevents global warming. Either Friedman is slowly learning two things that we all know already - that activism can be a cultural and social experience, and that young people today are pragmatic and working within and through institutions to accomplish change that his generation has thus far been unwilling to make - or he is somehow managing to keep his head from exploding from the cognitive dissonance of his two world views.

Rob Anderson, the editor of Campus Progress has an editorial in today's Washington Post responding to an earlier editorial by author and activist Naomi Wolf:

In Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section, Naomi Wolf argued that most young people today don't understand how democracy works and that even those who do are too cynical to get involved in our country's democratic process.

We'd all have something to worry about if Wolf's argument were true. America's youth today are coming of age at a time when one group of extremists has launched a violent attack on liberal values abroad, and as another seeks to roll back our civil liberties at home.

Fortunately, Wolf's depiction of my generation is supported only by anecdotal evidence, off-topic research and a faulty analysis of recent history. In reality, we young Americans are reshaping the political landscape with our activism and innovation. And we're working to increase our influence on the issues we care about most.

Two things. First, to Ms. Wolf: Fact Check; There Is No Crisis among American Youth, as Rob Anderson ably demonstrates in his piece.

Second, I just want to note that there has been a lot of really great push-back from progressive youth organizers against misleading and downright inaccurate narratives in the press about American youth participation in politics. Between the retorts to Adam Nagourney's reporting, corrections to a piece by CBS, smackdowns to 60 Minutes, reactions to Courtney Martin's piece in the American Prospect, rebuttals to Tom Freidmans' condescending and hypocritical "Generation Q," the creation of the Journalist "Cheat Sheet," and now this, it seems like progressive youth organizers are getting their sea legs when it comes to engaging in rapid response. The narrative is already much improved over what we saw around this time in 2003 or even 2005, and after the caucuses we'll have a big chance to reshape it even more. Until then, it's good to see such strong pushback. It's likely priming the pump for better coverage as we get deeper into the election cycle.

The Wired blog Threat Level is reporting that there has been a huge response to Thomas Freidman's Generation Q column that Alice covered here yesterday. The cognitive dissonance may kill Freidman. How in the world could apathetic, quiet Generation Q folks rise up so quickly to organize against him? And we even did it without starting a Facebook group!