It turns out not everyone enjoyed the YouTube debate as much as I did. In fact, it down right frightened some people because, I guess, too many regular people were allowed to participate. Unfortunately, it seems to have frightened the very people we need to be unafraid to listen and respond to the concerns of real Americans - like those people that want to be President of the United States. Apparently, Giuliani, Romney and McCain have become a little leery of having to deal with some originality and context when being asked questions during a debate, so they may not attend the GOP version of the YouTube debate on September 17th.
If presidential hopefuls are too busy to answer questions from real Americans, that's their choice. However, the fact that this is even an issue for those seeking the Republican nomination speaks volumes about Republicans' ability and desire to address those issues that are most important to young Americans. The last YouTube debate featured more young people than traditional town hall debates. As such, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain are implicitly sending the message that the concerns of young Americans are not important to them and do not figure in to their presidential aspirations. Perhaps, even worse, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain simply realize that they don't have answers to the problems that worry us most such as global warming, health care, sustainable energy policies, and the war in Iraq.
Democrats, on the other hand, fully embraced the opportunity to engage in a new forum that utilized some of today's most popular technology and gave regular Americans, many of them young, the chance to exercise their right to question those that would hold the highest office in the land. Unlike Republicans, the Democratic candidates recognize that we have legitimate concerns about the future of this country, and that successfully addressing those issues is key not only to electoral success but to the future well being of this country.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Ritter and Iraq
Every time I see Governor Ritter he impresses just a little more. Last night ProgressNow hosted an event with the Governor at Vinyl. Among other things, the Governor briefly touched on the disaster in Iraq. Two things stood out for me. First, Governor Ritter makes an effort to attend the funeral of every Colorado solider that has been killed in Iraq. Unlike the President, who refuses to allow the public to see the flag-draped coffins of fallen soldiers as they return home, the Governor is willing to acknowledge the human cost of this war, and is willing to actually honor the sacrifice that our soldiers are making rather than pay lip service to the price paid by so many brave men and women. Second, the Governor addressed the impact that the war has had on the states. He pointed out that the war, as we all know, is a costly endeavor. However, the burden of that expense is not borne the federal government alone. Rather, the money being spent in Iraq is money that previously was being spent on programs that assisted Colorado in providing critical services such as health care, education, and transportation. The resulting shortfalls will have long lasting consequences, consequences that our generation will have to face and overcome. For the vast majority of America, this war has been one that has asked of nothing from us. Yet, as the Governor notes, our generation will soon begin paying for the President's misadventure as a we grow up with inadequate health care for the poor, an under educated workforce, and a failing infrastructure.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
People Trust Us
As Rasmussen reports, the country as a whole trust Democrats to do the people's business. These numbers can only go up in the coming days in light of the revelation that the Attorney General has no problem lying to the Senate. Here's the report:
When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties.
In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue.
Republicans had enjoyed an historic advantage on National Security for several decades but are burdened by the unpopular War in Iraq. Last year’s Dubai Ports debacle also hurt perceptions of the GOP on national security.
The Democrats have also gained a little ground this month when it comes to the War in Iraq. Harry Reid’s party moved from a ten-point advantage in late June to a twelve-point lead of 47% to 35% in the new survey.
On another hot-button issue, Immigration, Democrats are now trusted more by 40%, versus 30% who trust Republicans more. This ten-point disparity is the second-largest we've seen all year. But another 29% don't find either party trustworthy.
Only Government Ethics and Corruption inspires higher levels of bipartisan distaste. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t notice any difference between the parties on the ethics front--among unaffiliated voters, that percentage mushrooms to 58%. Overall, Democrats are now favored by 38%, Republicans by 25%.
The GOP also lost ground on the Economy this month with Democrats now trusted more 47% to 38%. In June,the Democrats’ advantage was 47% to 40%.
Forty-three percent (43%) now trust Democrats more on Taxes, 41% trust Republicans more.
On domestic issues, Democrats enjoy the biggest advantage on Health Care and Social Security. Fifty percent (50%) trust Democrats more on Health Care, 33% trust Republicans more. On Social Security, 47% trust Democrats more while 34% prefer the GOP.
On Education, Democrats now have a four point advantage; on Abortion, a five-point advantage.
When it comes to National Security, Democrats are now trusted more by 42% of likely voters, Republicans by 40%. This means that Democrats now enjoy at least a nominal edge on all ten issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports to gauge voters' trust of the two major parties.
In late June Democrats had the edge on nine of ten issues. At that time, the GOP had a single point advantage of the National Security issue.
Republicans had enjoyed an historic advantage on National Security for several decades but are burdened by the unpopular War in Iraq. Last year’s Dubai Ports debacle also hurt perceptions of the GOP on national security.
The Democrats have also gained a little ground this month when it comes to the War in Iraq. Harry Reid’s party moved from a ten-point advantage in late June to a twelve-point lead of 47% to 35% in the new survey.
On another hot-button issue, Immigration, Democrats are now trusted more by 40%, versus 30% who trust Republicans more. This ten-point disparity is the second-largest we've seen all year. But another 29% don't find either party trustworthy.
Only Government Ethics and Corruption inspires higher levels of bipartisan distaste. Thirty-seven percent (37%) don’t notice any difference between the parties on the ethics front--among unaffiliated voters, that percentage mushrooms to 58%. Overall, Democrats are now favored by 38%, Republicans by 25%.
The GOP also lost ground on the Economy this month with Democrats now trusted more 47% to 38%. In June,the Democrats’ advantage was 47% to 40%.
Forty-three percent (43%) now trust Democrats more on Taxes, 41% trust Republicans more.
On domestic issues, Democrats enjoy the biggest advantage on Health Care and Social Security. Fifty percent (50%) trust Democrats more on Health Care, 33% trust Republicans more. On Social Security, 47% trust Democrats more while 34% prefer the GOP.
On Education, Democrats now have a four point advantage; on Abortion, a five-point advantage.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
YouTube Debate
This blog is subject to all the same rules that CYD is subject to in terms of endorsements and communications, so I am not going to try to talk about the substance of the debate last night for fear of not giving equal time or forgetting a candidate entirely. So, I'll just say that I thought all the candidates did well.
The performance of the candidates aside, I thought last night's debate was one of the best I've ever seen because of the questions that were asked. For those of you that didn't see it, all of the questions were asked via YouTube submissions from regular people all over the country. Obviously, we've all seen town halls where citizens are able to ask questions to the candidates, but for some reason those all strike me as wholly inauthentic. In contrast, the questions asked last night seemed to genuinely reflect the concerns of individuals across the country, and in many cases the questioners were able to put their own unique spin on the question to give their concerns true context and meaning.
My personal favorites, for vastly different reasons, were the guy with the largest semiautomatic weapon I've ever seen asking if his gun, aka his "baby," would be safe if the candidates became president; the lesbian couple sitting next to each other asking why they couldn't get married; and the snowman who was concerned about the future of his snowchild in light of global warming. I also appreciated that a few questioners appeared to be outright hostile to the Democratic Party. That's not something that you would get at a typical primary debate
Not to be lost in all of this is the fact that the YouTube medium gives young people an advantage in terms of having their concerns addressed. Although there was a wide disparity in the age of the questioners, it seemed to me that many more of the questioners were under 30 - far more than there would have been in a traditional debate format. As such, we should make a concerted effort to take advantage of these opportunities when they arise. CNN and YouTube are holding a similar debate for the Republicans on September 17th, so here's your chance to let the Republican candidates know what's on your mind (go ahead, they don't know you're a Democrat).
The performance of the candidates aside, I thought last night's debate was one of the best I've ever seen because of the questions that were asked. For those of you that didn't see it, all of the questions were asked via YouTube submissions from regular people all over the country. Obviously, we've all seen town halls where citizens are able to ask questions to the candidates, but for some reason those all strike me as wholly inauthentic. In contrast, the questions asked last night seemed to genuinely reflect the concerns of individuals across the country, and in many cases the questioners were able to put their own unique spin on the question to give their concerns true context and meaning.
My personal favorites, for vastly different reasons, were the guy with the largest semiautomatic weapon I've ever seen asking if his gun, aka his "baby," would be safe if the candidates became president; the lesbian couple sitting next to each other asking why they couldn't get married; and the snowman who was concerned about the future of his snowchild in light of global warming. I also appreciated that a few questioners appeared to be outright hostile to the Democratic Party. That's not something that you would get at a typical primary debate
Not to be lost in all of this is the fact that the YouTube medium gives young people an advantage in terms of having their concerns addressed. Although there was a wide disparity in the age of the questioners, it seemed to me that many more of the questioners were under 30 - far more than there would have been in a traditional debate format. As such, we should make a concerted effort to take advantage of these opportunities when they arise. CNN and YouTube are holding a similar debate for the Republicans on September 17th, so here's your chance to let the Republican candidates know what's on your mind (go ahead, they don't know you're a Democrat).
Friday, July 20, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Paris Likes Voting
A few weeks ago I suggested that young people are more engaged than many give us credit for. Of course, I don't think any of us are as involved as Paris Hilton. Apparently, Paris is so involved that she is able to vote for President when there isn't even a presidential election. Now that's involvement.
Monday, July 16, 2007
How To Value A Life
Just a quick thought. Lots of things annoy me about the President's well-worn line of reasoning that we need to continue the fight in Iraq so that we don't have to fight the enemy at home. For one, my guess is that the victims of the bombings in London and Spain would argue that we are, in fact, fighting them at home.
That's not what bothers me the most, however. The most disturbing thing about this line of reasoning is that the President is implicitly acknowledging that American lives are, in his view, more valuable than Iraqi or Afghan lives. It is a point that I think should be discussed more not only for its moral implications, but as a matter of strategy in the "Global War on Terror."
Obviously, I don't want open war erupting on the Sixteenth Street Mall, but neither the Iraqi or Afghan people were the targets of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans are being asked to sacrifice their lives so that more Americans do not have to do so. In a struggle that will likely span our lifetimes and beyond, those that can win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world will likely prevail. By articulating to the Islamic world that we believe that American lives have more intrinsic worth than the lives of those living in the Middle East, we likely seal our fate as the vanquished in this war.
That's not what bothers me the most, however. The most disturbing thing about this line of reasoning is that the President is implicitly acknowledging that American lives are, in his view, more valuable than Iraqi or Afghan lives. It is a point that I think should be discussed more not only for its moral implications, but as a matter of strategy in the "Global War on Terror."
Obviously, I don't want open war erupting on the Sixteenth Street Mall, but neither the Iraqi or Afghan people were the targets of the 9/11 attacks. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans are being asked to sacrifice their lives so that more Americans do not have to do so. In a struggle that will likely span our lifetimes and beyond, those that can win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world will likely prevail. By articulating to the Islamic world that we believe that American lives have more intrinsic worth than the lives of those living in the Middle East, we likely seal our fate as the vanquished in this war.
College Reduction Act
From YDA:
Keeping a key campaign promise of 2006, Democrats in the House of Representatives passed the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (H.R. 2669) by a vote of 273-149. The Young Democrats of America commend the Democratic Caucus for a unanimous vote in favor of this important legislation.The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 is the largest federal effort to make higher education more affordable since the 1944 G.I. Bill. This landmark act cuts interest rates on student loans, limits the percentage of income students spend repaying loans, and expands the Pell Grant scholarships system. Costs associated with the bill are offset through cutting excess subsidies to private banks and lenders. The Young Democrats of America and other youth organizations have been lobbying Congress on the need for student loan reform.The Bush Administration has threatened to veto this legislation, despite the bills wide margin of victory. Statement from YDA President Chris Gallaway: "Democrats, again, choose the well-being of young people and families over corporate greed by unanimously voting for the College Cost Reduction Act. Unfortunately, Republicans have once again proven that their talk for a better educated American workforce is just that – talk – by choosing to side with special interests over students. Our disappointment in some of our Representatives will not be forgotten. Over 2,000 YDA members sent letters to actively educate Members of Congress on the value of college affordability. It is an issue that young voters care about, and those same young voters will not forget their disappointment at the polls next year."
Keeping a key campaign promise of 2006, Democrats in the House of Representatives passed the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 (H.R. 2669) by a vote of 273-149. The Young Democrats of America commend the Democratic Caucus for a unanimous vote in favor of this important legislation.The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 is the largest federal effort to make higher education more affordable since the 1944 G.I. Bill. This landmark act cuts interest rates on student loans, limits the percentage of income students spend repaying loans, and expands the Pell Grant scholarships system. Costs associated with the bill are offset through cutting excess subsidies to private banks and lenders. The Young Democrats of America and other youth organizations have been lobbying Congress on the need for student loan reform.The Bush Administration has threatened to veto this legislation, despite the bills wide margin of victory. Statement from YDA President Chris Gallaway: "Democrats, again, choose the well-being of young people and families over corporate greed by unanimously voting for the College Cost Reduction Act. Unfortunately, Republicans have once again proven that their talk for a better educated American workforce is just that – talk – by choosing to side with special interests over students. Our disappointment in some of our Representatives will not be forgotten. Over 2,000 YDA members sent letters to actively educate Members of Congress on the value of college affordability. It is an issue that young voters care about, and those same young voters will not forget their disappointment at the polls next year."
Ask the Candidates
Here's an interesting fundraiser on Wednesday from ProgressNow:
I wanted to invite you to a Netroots Fundraiser to support Denver's local bloggers and Drinking Liberally next Wednesday, July 18 at 7:30pm at Double Daughters in Denver.
The evening promises to be exciting. We will be compiling a list of questions to to be asked of the Presidential candidates at the YearlyKos Blogger Convention Presidential Forum in Chicago in just a few weeks. So bring the questions you want asked of presidential candidates.
We’ll also be video-taping responses to a JKF inspired question about being a liberal for the YouTube Democratic Debate to air on July 23rd. Come armed with what being a liberal means to you.
Great progressive politicos will be available to answer any and all of your questions or to chat--folks from ProgressNow Action, Colorado Confidential, Media Matters, Jay Marvin from AM 760 and new Denver local David Sirota. So stop by, meet some good progressive politicos, and give your money to a good cause.
Sign up to attend at http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/m/raTX-rxELyV/hasrSU
I wanted to invite you to a Netroots Fundraiser to support Denver's local bloggers and Drinking Liberally next Wednesday, July 18 at 7:30pm at Double Daughters in Denver.
The evening promises to be exciting. We will be compiling a list of questions to to be asked of the Presidential candidates at the YearlyKos Blogger Convention Presidential Forum in Chicago in just a few weeks. So bring the questions you want asked of presidential candidates.
We’ll also be video-taping responses to a JKF inspired question about being a liberal for the YouTube Democratic Debate to air on July 23rd. Come armed with what being a liberal means to you.
Great progressive politicos will be available to answer any and all of your questions or to chat--folks from ProgressNow Action, Colorado Confidential, Media Matters, Jay Marvin from AM 760 and new Denver local David Sirota. So stop by, meet some good progressive politicos, and give your money to a good cause.
Sign up to attend at http://www.progressnowaction.org/page/m/raTX-rxELyV/hasrSU
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Cash For Progessives
Do you have an idea to help progressive infrastructure in your neighborhood, city, Colorado, the Rocky Mountain West or the entire country that would be really great if only you had a little extra cash? Well, if so, go check out BlogPac. They might have some extra dough to give you if they think you have one of the best five ideas they receive.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Oil and Gas
Leslie Robinson has an interesting post over at Colorado Confidential that addresses the impact oil and gas on the West Slope has on all of us. I suspect many outside the West Slope don't think about these issues on a regular basis. As the article makes clear, there are a lot of issues that directly impacts Coloradoans, no matter where they live.
As this blog matures, I hope we can have regular posts such as the one I've linked to that can expand on issues such as these that don't always receive the attention they deserve.
As this blog matures, I hope we can have regular posts such as the one I've linked to that can expand on issues such as these that don't always receive the attention they deserve.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
That's A Lot of Coin
Congressman Mark Udall has announced that he has raised $1.1 million dollars in the last three months for his bid to win the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Wayne Allard. To that we say keep up the good work, Congressman.
This news follows on the heels of news that Jared Polis, Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald, and Will Shafroth combined raised over $1 million in their efforts to replace Congressman Udall in CD-2.
On the one had, we think this is wonderful news. It is evidence that vision and message put forth by Democrats has real resonance with people across Colorado.
On the other hand, the impact that money has on the electoral system is a bit disconcerting. It takes a good deal of time for four people to raise over $2 million in three months, especially with caps on donations. While we think that money has a place in politics (it is one decent gauge of how much support a candidate can muster), it is interesting to think about how much time the candidates spent raising money when they could have been studying the issues and improving upon their capacity to make sound public policy.
Given that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that money will always be a part of politics, it may be time to begin to seriously visit the question of whether publicly funded elections are a viable option. Such a mechanism, or one similar, would have the effect of disentangling candidates from the money chase - though, admittedly, not entirely.
While being able to diminish the influence that money has on politics is a noble aspiration, a more specific goal ought to be to guarantee that those that decide to sacrifice their time and effort to run for public office be able to make such a sacrifice not while they are shaking donor's hands but while they are pouring over policy briefs in order to make themselves better legislators. We suspect that this is what candidates would prefer to do anyway, and we as citizens and voters would likely benefit from more well informed candidates and legislators.
The obvious question for us, the genreation to needs to fix a broke system, is how we go about doing that exactly.
This news follows on the heels of news that Jared Polis, Senator Joan Fitz-Gerald, and Will Shafroth combined raised over $1 million in their efforts to replace Congressman Udall in CD-2.
On the one had, we think this is wonderful news. It is evidence that vision and message put forth by Democrats has real resonance with people across Colorado.
On the other hand, the impact that money has on the electoral system is a bit disconcerting. It takes a good deal of time for four people to raise over $2 million in three months, especially with caps on donations. While we think that money has a place in politics (it is one decent gauge of how much support a candidate can muster), it is interesting to think about how much time the candidates spent raising money when they could have been studying the issues and improving upon their capacity to make sound public policy.
Given that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that money will always be a part of politics, it may be time to begin to seriously visit the question of whether publicly funded elections are a viable option. Such a mechanism, or one similar, would have the effect of disentangling candidates from the money chase - though, admittedly, not entirely.
While being able to diminish the influence that money has on politics is a noble aspiration, a more specific goal ought to be to guarantee that those that decide to sacrifice their time and effort to run for public office be able to make such a sacrifice not while they are shaking donor's hands but while they are pouring over policy briefs in order to make themselves better legislators. We suspect that this is what candidates would prefer to do anyway, and we as citizens and voters would likely benefit from more well informed candidates and legislators.
The obvious question for us, the genreation to needs to fix a broke system, is how we go about doing that exactly.
Our friend Tony Cani has some interesting posts over at the YDA blog addressing the youth involvement issue that we discussed last week. I thought I would throw three of the posts up for your consumption.
More Youth Vote Media Attention
by Tony Cani, Political Director on Thu Jul 5, 11:33 AM
Time has a new piece about the youth vote movement and the early efforts of Presidential candidates to reach out to an engaged generation of young Americans.
The fact that the Millenial generation (which is a huge block of voters) is bucking the "apathetic" trend of their older brothers and sisters is quickly becoming conventional wisdom.
After more than a decade of declining or stagnating numbers, turnout among voters under age 30 increased by almost 5 million in 2004 and almost 2 million in 2006. Voting experts say this is because a new generation has come of age — the Millienials — and they are more civically engaged young adults than so-called GenXers were during the 1990s. The Millenial Generation — those born between 1979 and 1994 — is also three times the size of Generation X. They've voted Democratic in the last two elections and according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll released in late June, they plan to again in 2008. That poll found that 54% of voters under age 30 say they intend to vote Democratic. But 40% of young adults ages 18 to 24 describe themselves as Independents, according to an April poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics. Because of that, Smith says Republicans could still win the youth vote in 2008.
I have said it on this blog and at meetings before and I will say it again: Young people are paying attention but that doesn't mean the battle is won. The added attention and focus on our early successes only increas the stakes. We need to keep pushing, keep innovating, and do everythign we can to translate the interest and support of young Americans into a long term Democratic voting bloc.
The good news is, for the first time in a long time, we aren't the only Democrats really trying to do this. Luckily, Democratic presidential candidates are blowing Republicans away not only in youth support, but in efforts to reach out to young people as actual voters - not just an internet loving volunteer force (think there is a connection?):
So far, however, Democratic presidential frontrunners have been better at reaching out to young people. The Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigns have all hired youth vote coordinators to focus on organization among students and young professionals. Obama hired Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes to oversee the campaign's social networking sites, while Hillary Clinton is using YouTube to reach its young audience — most recently by allowing them to select her campaign song, Celine Dion's "You and I." John Edwards continues to run his One Corps, a community service organization comprised mainly of young adults.
Our own Alexandra Acker gets a mention in the article as she compares this cycle's efforts to those of the past:
Such youth outreach this early on in an election season is unprecedented by Democrats, says Alexandra Acker, executive director of Young Democrats of America. Acker served as the youth outreach coordinator for John Kerry in 2004, but she wasn't brought on staff until after the primaries. "The biggest difference this election cycle is that all of the Democratic candidates now have a personal commitment to young voters, she says. "We're leaps and bounds ahead of where we were in 2004, and that was leaps and bounds ahead of 2000."
Personally, my favorite part of the article comes from the "we don't get it" teams at the Guiliani, McCain, and Romney campaigns:
On the Republican side, neither McCain nor Giuliani have hired youth vote coordinators, though Giuiliani does employ the same Republican pollster that Smith's team has used. A spokesman for McCain emphasized the campaign's presence on Facebook and MySpace. Mitt Romney's campaign has not met with Smith, says a campaign spokesman, because he already learned how to do successful youth vote outreach as Massachusetts . Recently Romney announced a "Students for Mitt" program in which college students receive a 10% commission for every $1,000 they raise for the campaign.
Oh those Republicans ... too busy firing staff and flip flopping on commutation to realize how important our generation is.
New Poll: Young Americans Support Democrats, Are Paying Attention to Politics
by Tony Cani, Political Director on Thu Jun 28, 11:00 AM
Some great stuff from a new NY Times / CBS news / MTV Poll.
Guess what? Young Americans support the Democratic Party.
More than half of Americans ages 17 to 29 — 54 percent — say they intend to vote for a Democrat for president in 2008. They share with the public at large a negative view of President Bush, who has a 28 percent approval rating with this group, and of the Republican Party. They hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans.
[...]
By a 52 to 36 majority, young Americans say that Democrats, rather than Republicans, come closer to sharing their moral values, while 58 percent said they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, and 38 percent said they had a favorable view of Republicans.
Guess what? Young Americans are engaged in Politics.
By any measure, the poll suggests that young Americans are anything but apathetic about the presidential election. Fifty-eight percent said they were paying attention to the campaign. By contrast, at this point in the 2004 presidential campaign, 35 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds said they were paying a lot or some attention to the campaign.
The mainstream media seems to be catching up to what we have known for a long time - young people are not only an essential voting bloc for the Democratic Party ... but a potentially powerful one.
Told You So! Young Voter Increases Confirmed by Census Data
by Tony Cani, Political Director on Sat Jun 16, 01:05 AM
Sometimes the hardest people to convince that young Americans are increasingly participating in our Democracy isn't them old folks ... but instead it is other young Americans.
Well, if you are still a cynic take a gander at this new info from a CIRCLE fact sheet on the 2006 election:
"This fact sheet uses new data from the 2006 Current Population Survey, November Supplement, to determine the youth voter turnout in the 2006 midterm election. The data confirm early estimates by CIRCLE that 10.8 million young Americans voted in the 2006 midterm elections. The voter turnout rate was 25.5 percent in 2006, up 3 percentage points from the last midterm election in 2002."
This obviously is great news for not only our Party, but for the state of our Democracy as whole.
Take a minute to congratulate yourself for your part in this increase - but don't rest on your laurels. To keep this trend of increased participation and support for Democrats alive, we are going to have to work even harder in the 2007 elections and during 2008 than we ever have.
That being said ... great job to everyone focusing on young voters!
More Youth Vote Media Attention
by Tony Cani, Political Director on Thu Jul 5, 11:33 AM
Time has a new piece about the youth vote movement and the early efforts of Presidential candidates to reach out to an engaged generation of young Americans.
The fact that the Millenial generation (which is a huge block of voters) is bucking the "apathetic" trend of their older brothers and sisters is quickly becoming conventional wisdom.
After more than a decade of declining or stagnating numbers, turnout among voters under age 30 increased by almost 5 million in 2004 and almost 2 million in 2006. Voting experts say this is because a new generation has come of age — the Millienials — and they are more civically engaged young adults than so-called GenXers were during the 1990s. The Millenial Generation — those born between 1979 and 1994 — is also three times the size of Generation X. They've voted Democratic in the last two elections and according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll released in late June, they plan to again in 2008. That poll found that 54% of voters under age 30 say they intend to vote Democratic. But 40% of young adults ages 18 to 24 describe themselves as Independents, according to an April poll by the Harvard Institute of Politics. Because of that, Smith says Republicans could still win the youth vote in 2008.
I have said it on this blog and at meetings before and I will say it again: Young people are paying attention but that doesn't mean the battle is won. The added attention and focus on our early successes only increas the stakes. We need to keep pushing, keep innovating, and do everythign we can to translate the interest and support of young Americans into a long term Democratic voting bloc.
The good news is, for the first time in a long time, we aren't the only Democrats really trying to do this. Luckily, Democratic presidential candidates are blowing Republicans away not only in youth support, but in efforts to reach out to young people as actual voters - not just an internet loving volunteer force (think there is a connection?):
So far, however, Democratic presidential frontrunners have been better at reaching out to young people. The Clinton, Obama and Edwards campaigns have all hired youth vote coordinators to focus on organization among students and young professionals. Obama hired Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes to oversee the campaign's social networking sites, while Hillary Clinton is using YouTube to reach its young audience — most recently by allowing them to select her campaign song, Celine Dion's "You and I." John Edwards continues to run his One Corps, a community service organization comprised mainly of young adults.
Our own Alexandra Acker gets a mention in the article as she compares this cycle's efforts to those of the past:
Such youth outreach this early on in an election season is unprecedented by Democrats, says Alexandra Acker, executive director of Young Democrats of America. Acker served as the youth outreach coordinator for John Kerry in 2004, but she wasn't brought on staff until after the primaries. "The biggest difference this election cycle is that all of the Democratic candidates now have a personal commitment to young voters, she says. "We're leaps and bounds ahead of where we were in 2004, and that was leaps and bounds ahead of 2000."
Personally, my favorite part of the article comes from the "we don't get it" teams at the Guiliani, McCain, and Romney campaigns:
On the Republican side, neither McCain nor Giuliani have hired youth vote coordinators, though Giuiliani does employ the same Republican pollster that Smith's team has used. A spokesman for McCain emphasized the campaign's presence on Facebook and MySpace. Mitt Romney's campaign has not met with Smith, says a campaign spokesman, because he already learned how to do successful youth vote outreach as Massachusetts . Recently Romney announced a "Students for Mitt" program in which college students receive a 10% commission for every $1,000 they raise for the campaign.
Oh those Republicans ... too busy firing staff and flip flopping on commutation to realize how important our generation is.
New Poll: Young Americans Support Democrats, Are Paying Attention to Politics
by Tony Cani, Political Director on Thu Jun 28, 11:00 AM
Some great stuff from a new NY Times / CBS news / MTV Poll.
Guess what? Young Americans support the Democratic Party.
More than half of Americans ages 17 to 29 — 54 percent — say they intend to vote for a Democrat for president in 2008. They share with the public at large a negative view of President Bush, who has a 28 percent approval rating with this group, and of the Republican Party. They hold a markedly more positive view of Democrats than they do of Republicans.
[...]
By a 52 to 36 majority, young Americans say that Democrats, rather than Republicans, come closer to sharing their moral values, while 58 percent said they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party, and 38 percent said they had a favorable view of Republicans.
Guess what? Young Americans are engaged in Politics.
By any measure, the poll suggests that young Americans are anything but apathetic about the presidential election. Fifty-eight percent said they were paying attention to the campaign. By contrast, at this point in the 2004 presidential campaign, 35 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds said they were paying a lot or some attention to the campaign.
The mainstream media seems to be catching up to what we have known for a long time - young people are not only an essential voting bloc for the Democratic Party ... but a potentially powerful one.
Told You So! Young Voter Increases Confirmed by Census Data
by Tony Cani, Political Director on Sat Jun 16, 01:05 AM
Sometimes the hardest people to convince that young Americans are increasingly participating in our Democracy isn't them old folks ... but instead it is other young Americans.
Well, if you are still a cynic take a gander at this new info from a CIRCLE fact sheet on the 2006 election:
"This fact sheet uses new data from the 2006 Current Population Survey, November Supplement, to determine the youth voter turnout in the 2006 midterm election. The data confirm early estimates by CIRCLE that 10.8 million young Americans voted in the 2006 midterm elections. The voter turnout rate was 25.5 percent in 2006, up 3 percentage points from the last midterm election in 2002."
This obviously is great news for not only our Party, but for the state of our Democracy as whole.
Take a minute to congratulate yourself for your part in this increase - but don't rest on your laurels. To keep this trend of increased participation and support for Democrats alive, we are going to have to work even harder in the 2007 elections and during 2008 than we ever have.
That being said ... great job to everyone focusing on young voters!
Thursday, July 5, 2007
This Is Why We Matter
As Paul Rogat Loeb notes:
"I suspect you’ve heard about the stunning margin of the youth vote – how 18-29 year-olds supported Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by a massive 60% to 38% difference. They did so in every region of the country, from a 74-25% split in the East to a 51-48% margin in the South. They provided the winning margin for Tester in Montana and Webb in Virginia, and helped put Claire McCaskill over the top in Missouri. Had it been up to them, the Democrats would have also won Senate races in Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada; Ned Lamont would have defeated Joe Lieberman, and a slew of additional House seats would have changed hands. The Democrats would have elected Senators from 26 states, with Republicans carrying Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and the Maine seat of moderate Olympia Snow. Studies suggest that young voters tend to keep the political identifications they develop in their first few elections (for instance, the wave of then-young adults who helped cascade Reagan into office have remained more conservative than their Vietnam-era peers). So if Democrats address the legitimate needs of this generation, they have a chance to make it a key part of a continuing majority."
It is staggering numbers such as these that highlight why young people are such a vital part of the Democratic Party. I think that Democrats in general do a fairly decent job of addressing the needs of this generation. This is especially true in the realm of energy and environmental policy where they are light years ahead of their Republican counterparts.
The real problem is that young people are too often forgotten when it comes to getting people out to the polls because conventional wisdom holds that we are inconsistent at best when it comes to actually casting votes.
However, without any numbers at the tips of my fingers to back me up, I am not sure that this school of thought applies to our generation. As Governor Ritter noted last week, if just a few hundred more young people had voted in Florida in 2000, the world would be a very different place today. In light of that experience, it seems that our generation is more aware than our predecessors that voting and being engaged in politics are meaningful activities to undertake. As such, campaigns should realize that focusing their GOTV efforts on young people can reap substantial benefits, up to and including victory.
Yet, it is not incumbent upon campaigns alone to get young people out to vote. We need to motivate ourselves and our peers. The question is whether we can be intelligent and creative enough to use the tools we have to accomplish this goal. I hope some of you have some ideas because on this issue I am all out.
"I suspect you’ve heard about the stunning margin of the youth vote – how 18-29 year-olds supported Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by a massive 60% to 38% difference. They did so in every region of the country, from a 74-25% split in the East to a 51-48% margin in the South. They provided the winning margin for Tester in Montana and Webb in Virginia, and helped put Claire McCaskill over the top in Missouri. Had it been up to them, the Democrats would have also won Senate races in Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada; Ned Lamont would have defeated Joe Lieberman, and a slew of additional House seats would have changed hands. The Democrats would have elected Senators from 26 states, with Republicans carrying Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and the Maine seat of moderate Olympia Snow. Studies suggest that young voters tend to keep the political identifications they develop in their first few elections (for instance, the wave of then-young adults who helped cascade Reagan into office have remained more conservative than their Vietnam-era peers). So if Democrats address the legitimate needs of this generation, they have a chance to make it a key part of a continuing majority."
It is staggering numbers such as these that highlight why young people are such a vital part of the Democratic Party. I think that Democrats in general do a fairly decent job of addressing the needs of this generation. This is especially true in the realm of energy and environmental policy where they are light years ahead of their Republican counterparts.
The real problem is that young people are too often forgotten when it comes to getting people out to the polls because conventional wisdom holds that we are inconsistent at best when it comes to actually casting votes.
However, without any numbers at the tips of my fingers to back me up, I am not sure that this school of thought applies to our generation. As Governor Ritter noted last week, if just a few hundred more young people had voted in Florida in 2000, the world would be a very different place today. In light of that experience, it seems that our generation is more aware than our predecessors that voting and being engaged in politics are meaningful activities to undertake. As such, campaigns should realize that focusing their GOTV efforts on young people can reap substantial benefits, up to and including victory.
Yet, it is not incumbent upon campaigns alone to get young people out to vote. We need to motivate ourselves and our peers. The question is whether we can be intelligent and creative enough to use the tools we have to accomplish this goal. I hope some of you have some ideas because on this issue I am all out.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
So, What Do We Call Her?
Speaker Pelosi has a new title: Chairwoman. Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean has named Speaker Pelosi chair of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
I think Governor Dean has made a great choice, and apparently I'm not the only one that thinks so. Colorado Republican Chair Dick Wadhams appears to be pleased as well for a slightly different reason. In this morning's Denver Post Wadhams responded to the selection of Speaker Pelosi by noting, "It absolutely confirms everything I've been saying for several months now, that the Democratic National Convention will reflect a very liberal, extreme-left viewpoint."
I am not quite certain what it is about Speaker Pelosi, other than committing the sin of being from San Francisco, that Mr. Wadhams sees as being so very liberal and extreme. Under the Speaker's leadership, the House has implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission's national security recommendations, voted for the first increase in the minimum wage in ten years, cut student loan interests in half, voted to roll back tax payer subsidies for large oil companies, voted to expand stem cell research, restored "pay-as-you-go" budgeting, and restricted spending earmarks. And that was just in the first 100 hours of Speaker Pelosi being in power!
If these are the "extreme" points of view that will be reflected at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, then I think that 2008 will be a very good year for Democrats. Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues have operated under the notion that they will do what is right for this country and help every American rather than a select, wealthy few. It is that type of vision and leadership that we are now lucky to have in Washington.
As Young Democrats, it is our job to remind our peers that it is the Republicans who see such sensible legislation and straight forward philosophy as too extreme for America. For those we encounter who are unsure about voting for Democrats, we simply need contrast the prudent policies enacted by Speaker Pelosi with the corruption and do-nothingness of the Republican Congress that preceded her. If we do this effectively, there is no doubt that in 2008 Democrats will continue to build on their recent electoral successes both in Colorado and across the country.
So, welcome Speaker/Chairwoman Pelosi. We look forward to your arrival.
I think Governor Dean has made a great choice, and apparently I'm not the only one that thinks so. Colorado Republican Chair Dick Wadhams appears to be pleased as well for a slightly different reason. In this morning's Denver Post Wadhams responded to the selection of Speaker Pelosi by noting, "It absolutely confirms everything I've been saying for several months now, that the Democratic National Convention will reflect a very liberal, extreme-left viewpoint."
I am not quite certain what it is about Speaker Pelosi, other than committing the sin of being from San Francisco, that Mr. Wadhams sees as being so very liberal and extreme. Under the Speaker's leadership, the House has implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission's national security recommendations, voted for the first increase in the minimum wage in ten years, cut student loan interests in half, voted to roll back tax payer subsidies for large oil companies, voted to expand stem cell research, restored "pay-as-you-go" budgeting, and restricted spending earmarks. And that was just in the first 100 hours of Speaker Pelosi being in power!
If these are the "extreme" points of view that will be reflected at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, then I think that 2008 will be a very good year for Democrats. Speaker Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues have operated under the notion that they will do what is right for this country and help every American rather than a select, wealthy few. It is that type of vision and leadership that we are now lucky to have in Washington.
As Young Democrats, it is our job to remind our peers that it is the Republicans who see such sensible legislation and straight forward philosophy as too extreme for America. For those we encounter who are unsure about voting for Democrats, we simply need contrast the prudent policies enacted by Speaker Pelosi with the corruption and do-nothingness of the Republican Congress that preceded her. If we do this effectively, there is no doubt that in 2008 Democrats will continue to build on their recent electoral successes both in Colorado and across the country.
So, welcome Speaker/Chairwoman Pelosi. We look forward to your arrival.
Monday, July 2, 2007
The Rule of Law Means . . .
nothing, apparently. As MSNBC.com reports:
"President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on Monday, sparing him from a 2½-year prison term that Bush said was excessive."
In pardoning Scooter, the President noted that he "respect[ed] the jury's verdict."
Nice to know that the President respected the jury's decision. Except that he clearly didn't respect the jury's decision. Rather, he showed outright disdain for the jury's decision as well as the entire system of justice on which this country is based. He played his self described role as "Decider." He determined that despite the conclusion reached by his peers over the course of a fair trial, Scooter shouldn't be punished for falling on his sword in order to protect the administration. Thus, the entire judicial process could be tossed aside.
While the sheer partisanship of this decision is enough to make me actually shake my head, there is a more important point here. It's the message that we are sending to the world. At a time that we are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, in part, in order to impose democracy and the rule of law upon which that democracy is based, the President today has unequivocally signaled that the United States is above that very rule of law.
It is incomprehensible that some people, people who proclaim to be the greatest proponents of the rule of law, expect others around the world to adopt the rule of law when those same proponents show such a lack of respect or need for it. From the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, to the evisceration of habeus corpus, to secret wire taps, to today's decision to ignore the justice system entirely, there are too many examples that this President, this administration, does not care about the rule of law. It shouldn't be any wonder that the rule of law is having difficulty taking hold in other parts of the world - other parts of the world are just following our example.
"President Bush commuted the sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby on Monday, sparing him from a 2½-year prison term that Bush said was excessive."
In pardoning Scooter, the President noted that he "respect[ed] the jury's verdict."
Nice to know that the President respected the jury's decision. Except that he clearly didn't respect the jury's decision. Rather, he showed outright disdain for the jury's decision as well as the entire system of justice on which this country is based. He played his self described role as "Decider." He determined that despite the conclusion reached by his peers over the course of a fair trial, Scooter shouldn't be punished for falling on his sword in order to protect the administration. Thus, the entire judicial process could be tossed aside.
While the sheer partisanship of this decision is enough to make me actually shake my head, there is a more important point here. It's the message that we are sending to the world. At a time that we are occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, in part, in order to impose democracy and the rule of law upon which that democracy is based, the President today has unequivocally signaled that the United States is above that very rule of law.
It is incomprehensible that some people, people who proclaim to be the greatest proponents of the rule of law, expect others around the world to adopt the rule of law when those same proponents show such a lack of respect or need for it. From the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, to the evisceration of habeus corpus, to secret wire taps, to today's decision to ignore the justice system entirely, there are too many examples that this President, this administration, does not care about the rule of law. It shouldn't be any wonder that the rule of law is having difficulty taking hold in other parts of the world - other parts of the world are just following our example.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
We're Here
Welcome to the Colorado Young Democrats blog. Thanks for stopping by. With the launch of our new website (www.coloradoyoungdems.com), we thought it appropriate to also create a blog in order to provide an interactive forum with which to discuss all things political from the perspective of what is rapidly becoming one of the most important constituencies in Colorado - young people. However, this blog does not exist for the sake of existing. Rather, we sincerely believe that it is important that young people have place to exchange ideas, debate issues, and voice concerns about topics that matter most to them because CYD cannot be an effective advocate for young progressives if we do not know what you are thinking. While we will regularly post on everything from world events to local happenings, the success of this blog and our organization is dependent on you.
So, let's start talking.
So, let's start talking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)