Grading the RNC Chair Candidates’
Young Voter Outreach Plans
Young Voter Outreach Plans
With the RNC Chair election rapidly approaching, I wanted to take a look at how each candidate plans to appeal to young voters. Specifically, I will be referencing each candidate’s plans and platforms as outlined on their respective websites, along with their responses to the question regarding youth voters at the RNC Chair debate hosted by Americans for Tax Reform. Based on these past remarks and platforms, I will then grade each candidate’s overall plan for increasing the Republican Party’s appeal to young voters.
Chip Saltsman Grade: D+
At the ATR debate, Saltsman insisted that young voters are not the future of the Party, but instead the “heart and soul of the party” because “they are involved in every campaign we run.” Saltsman recalled how he was inspired by Ronald Reagan, and how Reagan inspired to people to know that “we were the shining city on the hill,” and he stated that “we need to make sure that we inspire all people across all age groups to let them know that we are a great country.”
Saltsman’s Republican Plan for Victory insists that “Republicans must also develop a new game plan to connect with younger voters” so that they don’t “become habitual Democratic supporters.” In terms of technology, he argues that “we need to rethink our online tactics and strategy,” as the 2008 election cycle taught many lessons, including “the growing political significance of self-organizing citizen activism; the speed at which viral information travels through the blogosphere and other digital media; the power of online fundraising; the extent to which younger voters rely on and demand online information and interactivity; and the peril of a strategy blind to these irreversible developments.”
My Take: Saltsman is correct that Republicans must find a way to connect with and inspire young voters. However, his plan offers virtually no substance as to how to accomplish this. After the GOP’s devastating 2-to-1 national defeat among young voters, this is simply inadequate for someone striving to be the leader of the Republican Party’s future.
Ken Blackwell Grade: D+
(This is OKGOP Chair Gary Jones pick)
At the ATR debate, Blackwell repeated his call that, “We have to bring [the College Republican National Committee] back into our structure,” and he also advocated Rebuild the Party’s “40 under 40″ strategy. He noted that he believes it is necessary to include “young folks at the policy level, the organizational level, and the service level — at every level of government.”
In his Conservative Resurgence Plan, Blackwell insists that Republicans must draw “contrasts with Democrats regarding these principles, values, and ideas.” He also argues that the RNC has been “negligent in the development of young candidates and operatives through the College Republicans and Young Republicans.” Overall, he states that, “We will work to make changes necessary to strengthen the relationship between College Republicans and the RNC, allowing us to work together electing more Republicans.” Technologically, Blackwell identifies the need to establish a CTO as senior level RNC staff. He also proposes “rolling out a social network which will serve as the foundation of a new Republican online movement.”
My Take: Blackwell’s plan strives to enhance the relationship between College/Young Republicans and the RNC. He (correctly) points out that the RNC has largely neglected developing young candidates and operatives, although he fails to propose a specific solution to this problem beyond offering RNC “funding for a national field program of well-trained College Republicans.” In the end, what he proposes may certainly solidify the RNC’s collaboration with existing young Republican voters and institutions, but it offers insufficient substance as to exactly how to accomplish this. More importantly, his plan offers little in terms of proposals for bringing new young voters into the GOP.
Katon Dawson Grade: F
Like Chip Saltsman, Dawson invoked Ronald Reagan’s name and vision in his response at the debate. He pointed out that “it didn’t matter that [Reagan] was 60-some odd years old, the youth came out everywhere and voted across lines.” Based on this, he concluded that “it’s the value of our candidates, how we recruit them, and how we energize it…it comes from the quality and the value of the people we put on the ground.”
The Dawson Plan states that, “The Republican Party was once known as the party of small business, entrepreneurship and enterprise. That mantle was lost when our leaders promoted big government, big spending, and more mandates and regulation.” It briefly touches on the problems that the GOP is encountering with young voters when Dawson writes, “Meanwhile, young voters 18 to 29 voted for Barack Obama by a margin of 2-to-1.” The plan proposes a four-pronged “Operation eGOP” to enhance the Republican Party’s use of technology. The three components are: first, creating regional eCampaign Directors to work with state and local parties; second, for the RNC to “invest in new technology to build a platform so multiple vendors can use RNC technological and information resources for candidate websites and tools”; third, for the RNC to invest in building a “robust and open” social network; and fourth, to commit to recruiting 5 million new online activists. Interestingly enough, Dawson is the only candidate who hasn’t endorsed the Rebuild the Party plan.
My Take: Dawson recognizes the importance of candidates that appeal to young voters, but neither his plan nor his debate response address what he will do as RNC Chair to ensure that these sort of candidates run and are given the resources to be elected. Not only does Dawson fail to provide any specifics as to how he would appeal to young voters, but he has not even endorsed the Rebuild the Party plan which offers a number of ideas in terms of ways to do this.
Michael Steele Grade: D-
In response to the question at the ATR debate, Steele argued that approaching the problem with young voters through a “national footprint” is not enough; instead, he spoke about “something that’s in your backyard.” Michael suggested that if Republicans “want to have a face-to-face with young people, then you need to be on the college campuses. You need to help them organize. You need to be in their neighborhoods and their communities speaking directly in their language on the issues that are important to them.” Overall, he insisted that we must “actually put them in the game and let them play the game. That’s when you’ll start to attract folks.”
None of Steele’s Blueprint for Tomorrow addresses the issue of increasing the GOP’s standing with young voters, and it is fairly vague in terms of plans for improving the Republican Party’s use of technology.
My Take: Although Steele’s response drew an astounding round of applause at the debate, I find it worrisome that he provides no specifics as to how to accomplish his goals, and even more discouraging that he does not address winning over young voters in any way in his Blueprint for Tomorrow. While his points from the debate may be accurate, they are far too vague and lack any clear direction or plan.
Mike Duncan Grade: C-
At the debate, Duncan proposed three points to increasing the GOP’s appeal to young voters. First, he stated that the GOP must “make sure we attract young people with ideas,” which he believes can be produced by his proposed Center for Republican Renewal. Second, he pointed to technology as a place to appeal to young voters, noting that the RNC must communicate with them “on the home pages, on the Facebook, with the Twittering.” Finally, he insisted that the GOP needs to have role models for younger voters, such as the newly elected Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock. He also highlighted his opposition to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prevents the RNC from funding organizations like CRs and YRs.
Duncan’s Plan for the Future states that the Republican Party must improve its standing among many demographics, including young voters, “while maintaining our support among our traditional base.” Duncan argues that “we must identify those who share our principles but don’t trust our Party, [and] … gain, or re-gain, their trust by offering real solutions to issues they care about.” Finally, he insists that the RNC must persuade people that “our ideas are the path to a stronger, safer, and more prosperous America.”
My Take: Duncan’s recognition of the importance in electing new young Republicans as “role models” is excellent, but he generally fails to identify specific initiatives that could accomplish this. That said, the Center for Republican Renewal is a concrete solution that could be useful in finding new ideas to increase the Republican Party’s appeal to young voters. His statement about “the Facebook, the Twittering” suggests a possible lack of awareness of these arenas that are crucial in appealing to young voters. Finally, even though eliminating the barriers of the campaign reform act may be valuable, increasing funding to College and Young Republicans will be unlikely to convert many non-Republican young voters into Republicans, as these organizations primarily serve to appeal to existing Republicans.
Saul Anuzis Grade: B-
At the debate, Saul insisted that it is necessary for “Young Republicans, College Republicans, and Teenage Republicans to have a seat at the table.” He cited a study that suggests that “70% of the kids in high school today want to be entrepreneurs,” and argues that the GOP can appeal to this sense of entrepreneurship by re-establishing itself as “a party for free markets and free minds.”
On his website, Saul states that as RNC Chair he would “hold frequent meetings with young leaders,” such that “they will lead our outreach efforts and will have honest funding to do so effectively.” Saul has also been noted as a leader in embracing the sort of technology and openness that is crucial in appealing to young voters — indeed, he even announced his intentions to run for Chair on Twitter. In his Blueprint for a GOP Comeback, Saul writes that, “We will seek input and ideas specifically from … younger groups and leaders to help ensure we are not forfeiting a generation of voters.” In addition to endorsing Rebuild the Party, Saul also proposes a “60 under 40″ plan, in which “Only 60 individuals under the age of 40 will be chosen each year.” These individuals “will travel to Washington for leadership training, media training, and fundraising training.” Finally, Saul advocates practices such as “Best Web Ad” contests that he will aim specifically at younger Republicans “to encourage … creativity and passion.”
My Take: Saul identifies a number of concrete proposals for appealing to young voters, and his understanding of and willingness to embrace technology could help the GOP make inroads among these voters. However, his decision to limit training to 60 individuals each year is disheartening. Saul’s belief in including young voters at the table and using their guidance could be immensely valuable — but for this to be a success, these young voters must be diverse, not just “members of the choir.”
Conclusion
The lack of substantial and comprehensive plans for increasing the Republican Party’s appeal to young voters from the majority of the candidates for RNC Chair is rather frightening.
Despite the fact that the surge in the percentage of the youth vote received by Barack Obama played a huge role in his victory, most of the RNC Chair candidates seem content to preserve the status quo — working with College Republicans, Young Republicans, and other existing young Republican groups and folks while failing to outreach to new young voters.
If the Republican Party wants to win elections and be the party of the future, our next RNC Chair is going to have to do much better than that.
