One of my all-time favorite television shows is HBO's The Wire. So it's a little surreal to feel like I'm living in an episode. No, I'm not involved in the drug trade or police department. I'm not a stevedore losing my union job, and I'm not a school teacher struggling with No Child Left Behind. Like the reporters and police officers in the fifth and final season of the show, though, I feel like my work, and the work of many of my colleagues are not being adequately supported. In short, the youth vote community is being asked "to do more with less."

As I've written many times before, 2004 was a boom year for youth organizing as the progressive movement built many new institutions (and strengthened others) to reach out to young voters. There were two driving forces behind this boom: entrepreneurial activism on the part of young people, and a willingness among donors to take risks and support that work. The results were impressive and verified by independent research.

This year, the "surging" youth vote is one of the most important stories of the election cycle, and one would think that interest in moving as many young voters to the polls as possible would be a high priority. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. Many of the organizations responsible for engaging young voters in 2004 and 2006, and many new organizations working to fill holes in the youth engagement sphere, are struggling to raise funds and scale up their operations for the fall.

"As far as I'm aware, all the youth voting groups put together haven't secured more than $10 Million toward their budgets in 2008," said Billy Wimsatt, founder and former executive director of the League of Young Voters. "If the $40 Million figure from 2004 is correct, this means we are seeing only one quarter of of the funding for youth voting as in 2004. This is a staggering decrease."

Indeed, it is. At a time when expectations for the youth vote are at their highest, youth organizers are not being provided with the resources they need to make good on that promise and capitalize on the energy and excitement among the country's youngest voters. Youth organizers - who have worked for the last five years to build up to this moment when our peers could potentially tip a Presidential election - are in a very bad spot. In an election cycle that may see our biggest victory in decades, we do not have the resources to play more than a small part in that victory.

The reasons behind this drastic decline in support are varied. Some point to the success of the Obama campaign in turning out young voters, and a desire on the part of potential funders to put their money "where it is most needed." Others point to statements made by the Obama campaign itself asking that funders not support "outside efforts" on the campaign trail. The tightening economy is also a potential - though less likely - culprit.

This isn't about ego or a turf war between the Obama campaign and independent youth organizers. It's about how the funding cycle works and the long-term health of youth organizing on the progressive (and Democratic) side of the political aisle. As we've seen, Obama's youth support comes almost entirely from college-educated youth who make up only a fraction of the eligible voting population. Everything I hear from inside the Obama campaign points to a college-based youth strategy in the battleground states identified by the campaign. Obama can't and shouldn't be allowed to run the youth component of this campaign cycle alone. His campaign needs the help of complementary, independent youth organizations to reach out to those non-college voters and get them to the polls - not just to secure his own election, but for the election of down-ballot candidates as well.

The consequences of this dearth in funding go far beyond this single election and may have a negative impact on progressive youth infrastructure well into the midterm elections. As David Simon himself said, you don't do more with less. You do less with less. That will show when youth organizations and donors study their 2008 GOTV efforts and plan presentations for their work in 2009 and 2010. Less impressive results in those post-election studies will likely yield a smaller investment from donors. With a continued decrease in funding, our nascent movements' capabilities to move votes will slowly begin to wither.

Meanwhile, we'll have to wait and see whether the Obama campaign was a worthwhile gamble. And let's be clear - that is exactly what donors are doing by withholding support. They are betting that the Obama campaign will be able to move a sufficient number of young voters on its own, and that those mobilization efforts will continue as long as - and beyond - an Obama Presidency.

Will that organization be the shining savior that continues to effectively mobilize young voters in 2009 and 2010? Or will the Obama administration focus on its own goals and brush aside our concerns about continued youth mobilization as easily as they brushed off concerns about his votes on FISA? In four or six years, will young people (middle and high schoolers now) have the same motivation to support President Obama as do those who carry his campaign today? How about eight years? Is that something you want to bet a movement on? I don't.

Comments (17)

1. "In four or six years, will young people (middle and high schoolers now) have the same motivation to support President Obama as do those who carry his campaign today? How about eight years? Is that something you want to bet a movement on? I don't."

   So...the "youth vote" grows up and possibly doesn't vote Democratic?

   Ergo, it's just another part of the general election and not some "special" demographic that needs coddling?

   They simply turn into the usual "working moms"...."white men"...."single moms"...."gun owners"...."urban liberals"..."farmers"..."union workers"...."small business owners"...that are the elements that campaigns have concentrated on...and which ARE necessary to win over.

   Or are you building a case NOW, Mr Connery for the polling data that will come in....and why the youth vote "didn't matter that much in 2008, because Obama failed to support them"????

   Posted by Maskdelta at 07/24/2008 @ 3:24pm

2. funding comes from the government; bush/mcbush will stop at nothing to prevent democracy in this country....

   at least mcbush won't be emailing anybody....and he already admits he knows nothing about the economy.....but we are all whiners anyway!!!!

   bush/mcbush hate our freedoms!!!!!

   Change NOW

   Posted by jrs112 at 07/24/2008 @ 4:11pm

3. Does anybody really think that the kids will turn out in the numbers they desire? I don't.

   Posted by frankgrits at 07/24/2008 @ 4:25pm

4. Round 12

   Mask, I can't even understand what you're saying when you write "So...the 'youth vote' grows up and possibly doesn't vote Democratic?" Are you agreeing with Mr. Connery that today's "middle and high schoolers" (who aren't even part of the youth vote yet, hence my confusion) may not grow up to be Democratic voters? Or are you saying that today's young voters, in college or not, will grow up and become soccer moms, etc., etc., etc.?

   By the way, methinks "coddling" is in the eye of the beholder. I would guess that some of our gun control nuts would argue that gun owners are coddled by the politicians, while the anti-worker set like LivLib and Co. would say the same about union workers, and we all know what you've thought about the youth vote and anyone who has touted it - responsibly or not - since, oh, 1972.

   What you refuse to understand, or continue to ignore or lie about, is that Mr. Connery has acknowledged that young voters do not stay young forever, that they turn into all of the above voter groups, but that evidence has also indicated that (a) they can and have been mobilized to vote in significant numbers while they are young, (b) that each cohort of young people is replaced by a fresh cohort of young voters that must be mobilized and (c) if a party can successfully convince a young person to vote for them in three consecutive elections, they have an excellent shot at winning that person's loyalty for life.

   Posted by cka2nd at 07/24/2008 @ 4:38pm

5. I don't see why Connery whines so damn much!

   With les money going into youth organizing and turnout, yet turnout is so much higher than in `04 & `06, I'd say, cut off ALL funding....it's obvious that funding's impact is overstated and who the candidate IS, is far more material! Duh, double duh!

   Unless, of course, Connery has friends in the `business' who needs to keep their jobs working on the youth vote!

   Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/24/2008 @ 5:38pm

6. Unless, of course, Connery has friends in the `business' who needs to keep their jobs working on the youth vote! Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/24/2008 @ 5:38pm

   Why else would you need more money?

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:39pm

7. Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/24/2008 @ 5:38pm

   By the way I think you have it right. I think youth turn out when there is a candidate they feel like voting for. I think youth turnout is low when the options are two bowls of shit (Lewis Black) ie. Bush v. Kerry. If you give them bad options they won't turn out to vote. Older people tend to turn out anyway and go third party or just hold their knows and vote for whoever. Youth tend to be more fickle. If they can't have it their way they don't want to participate at all.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:43pm

8. By the way I think you have it right. I think youth turn out when there is a candidate they feel like voting for. I think youth turnout is low when the options are two bowls of shit (Lewis Black) ie. Bush v. Kerry. If you give them bad options they won't turn out to vote. Older people tend to turn out anyway and go third party or just hold their knows and vote for whoever. Youth tend to be more fickle. If they can't have it their way they don't want to participate at all.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/25/2008 @ 12:43pm

   And yet evidence cited ad nauseum by Mr. Connery doesn't fully support your position. Even with two bowls of shit, youth turnout was high in 2004 and almost won Bowl #2 the White House, probably because Bowl #1 stunk SOOOOOO bad.

   Posted by cka2nd at 07/25/2008 @ 5:48pm

9. ....youth turnout was high in 2004 and almost won Bowl #2 the White House,.....

   Posted by cka2nd at 07/25/2008 @ 5:48pm

   And this "high" turnout in `04 led to Bowel #1 WINNING a bigger margin over #2 than in 2000? How does this compute into "almost won"....relative to `00 when Bowel #2 had more popular votes but came up short a handful of Electoral votes?

   Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/25/2008 @ 6:28pm

10. And this "high" turnout in `04 led to Bowel #1 WINNING a bigger margin over #2 than in 2000? How does this compute into "almost won"....relative to `00 when Bowel #2 had more popular votes but came up short a handful of Electoral votes?

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/25/2008 @ 6:28pm

    that's because the toilet is flush full of problems.

    this year it's metamucil vs. pepto bismol.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 07/26/2008 @ 12:00pm

11. There's a very, very simple way to cure youth apathy, and it can be expressed in only three words:

    Reinstate the draft.

    I said "simple," not "easy"! There is a difference, of course.

    The abolition of the draft was intended to rein in US-American imperialism, but unfortunately, it has since been discovered that with enough expensive hardware, our government can still wage frivolous wars, even with only a volunteer army. Maintaining a long-term occupation is of course a different matter, but with slick public relations and muzzled media, a large segment of the US-American public can still be convinced that even an obvious debacle is actually a success. This segment is no longer a majority, but it is still large enough to enable our lame-duck President to veto any reasonable reform in our foreign policy.

    So I will say this, not because anybody wants to hear it, but because it's true: The abolition of the draft has failed to achieve its intended purpose. It has only exacerbated the injustices of the US-American economy, which pushes thousands of young people from lower-income families every year into the jaws of the military, simply because they could never afford higher education otherwise. Meanwhile, the children of the Bushes and the Cheneys have no economic need to enlist - and therefore (wonder of wonders!) they generally have no desire to enlist, either. And the US-American upper class regards the hideous costs of military occupation, those that our long-suffering working-class soldiers bear alone, as "other people's problem."

    Reinstating the draft would solve this problem. I would of course suggest that we end the occupation of Iraq first. Barack Obama is known to be a centrist who is eager to "re-think" everything. I say, bravo! How about re-thinking the draft?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/28/2008 @ 12:25pm

12. It has only exacerbated the injustices of the US-American economy, which pushes thousands of young people from lower-income families every year into the jaws of the military, simply because they could never afford higher education otherwise.......

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/28/2008 @ 12:25pm

    How do you explain that today, it's harder than ever to get into the service academies? My son & I attended a Service Academy Open House last fall....he had some interest since several Eagle Scouts from his/our troop have gone, or are in, the Academies? Also, one of my wife's best friend, very well-to-do with the husband in investment banking in Chicago, has a son who graduated from West Point.

    I would also wager, most HS graduates who enter the military today, aren't aiming for higher education....some, sure! Most are looking for some `adventure' and playing/learning about high-tech. As you well know, the actual front-line combat troops are but a very small % of our military.....far, far more are in support/logistic/maintenance!

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 5:03pm

13. Service academies are for military officers, not for the rank-and-file. You don't need a degree from a prestigious military academy to join the military. I think you know this already, "2Happy," and that you're just playing dumb.

    High-tech training is also higher education. Therefore, it is misleading at best to say that people who join the military "aren't aiming for higher education" simply because the education that they want is in the field of high technology.

    If young people want high-tech education, then why don't they all go to tech schools? You know the answer to that one, too. Tech schools cost money, whereas the military offers free training in exchange for the soldier's willingness to risk his or her life.

    Come on, somebody CHALLENGE my arguments!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/28/2008 @ 5:50pm

14. .....the soldier's willingness to risk his or her life.....

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/28/2008 @ 5:50pm

    IF I'm "playing dumb", maybe it's who I'm talking to?!

    Are you dumb or just didn't catch my point about the service academies? Be they well-to-do, middle class or poor, folks VOLUNTARILY enter the military. But of course, you don't believe in free will or the free market....so, perhaps you `get it' but felt too challengedto address!

    You and John Kerry are of the same mindset....which reminds me of the photo w/the truly hilarious banner those US soldiers in Irak aimed at Kerry after that outrageously stupid comment he made!

    BTW, many high-tech military jobs aren't on the "risk his or her life" line.....How many serving on carriers or subs are fired upon? How many manning military air fields are exposed to AK-47's and RPGs? How many stationed in the other 100+ countries are at risk? How many manning NORAD and our ICBMs' are in daily fear of their lives?

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/28/2008 @ 7:32pm

15. It's very sad that the youth vote is not being developed enough. The youth are, after all, the ones who will have to deal most extensively with the decisions made by whoever gets elected. People complain about the disconnect between the government and the people these days, but few realize that this is partly due to extremely low voter turnout, which leaves corporations and money as the biggest players in elections, rather than voters themselves. The youth have so much potential to push this country in the right direction, let's do all we can to help them get out and vote: http://www.brightfuture.us/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id =158&Itemid=71

    Posted by timbuktu at 07/29/2008 @ 05:32am

16. "2Happy," you don't HAVE a point to make about military academies, unless it's MY point.

    Upper-middle-class young folks pay for an education in a military academy. Lower-income young folks just enlist and sign up to get their training in boots on the ground. You say all of these people, regardless of their income level, are simply making free choices. I ask: Why do the upper-income folks make different choices from the lower-income folks? And I have an answer: Because the latter are acting under financial constraints that the former do not have. I'm sure you see these financial constraints, too, "2Happy," but you pretend not to. Playing dumb again!

    It's nonsense to say that I do not "believe" in free will, just as it is nonsense to say that one's will is free because one believes it is or unfree because one fails to believe that it is. Free will is not a matter of belief at all, but a matter of knowledge and power. One's will is free to the same degree as one has both a true knowledge of one's own self-interest and sufficient power to act successfully in one's own self-interest. Insofar as power is unfairly distributed, freedom is also unfairly distributed. Some have more freedom than others. We can correct this injustice through the democratization of both political and economic power.

    Risk, like power, is also by no means equally distributed among people who work for the military, as any soldier will tell you, and frankly, as I'm sure you are well aware, but pretend not to be. And I believe you know more about HOW this risk is distributed than you're willing to admit. There's a reason why so many people would prefer to be officers with degrees rather than rank-and-file recruits. The latter, as is well known, get less prestige and more risk.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 07/30/2008 @ 12:09am

17. Posted by JakobFabian at 07/30/2008 @ 12:09am

    What you just posted sounded like mumble jumble that makes some sense but far more philosophical BS than anything.

    A few simple questions for you to ponder should do it as to getting my point:!

    Do Americans voluntarily enter the military irregardless of their family background?

    Is our economy so small that anyone with a HS education but generally not all that good at studies, has no other choice to support themselves other than to `volunteer' for military service?

    Are there nobody entering the military doing so for the express purpose of wanting to experience combat but without being fully aware of the dangers?

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/30/2008 @ 3:24pm