7.18.2008

Likely Voters More Republican?

In the ABC/Washington Post poll that showed Obama leading 50-42 among registered voters, the “likely voter” screen they used showed Obama only leading 49-46. When a pollster uses a “likely voter” screen they are applying their own special secret sauce formula to determine who is likeliest to vote.

The critical element that skews likely voters more Republican this time is that likely voters = engaged voters, engaged voters skew older, and older voters skew McCain in this race.

Marc Ambinder explains:

Based on data, studies and experience, pollsters assume that older voters tend to reach information saturation earliest, tune in the earliest, and pick their candidates the earliest. Likely voter models this far out don't oversample older voters per se -- they oversample voters who have made up their mind and aren't likely, even if they say they're likely, to change their minds. John McCain's leading among older voters, but not by much. So when younger voters -- younger than 65 -- begin to make up their minds in the fall, likely voter models will move back into equilibrium and Obama's lead among registered voters should begin to match his lead among likely voters.
Chuck Todd-led First Read agrees:
[R]ight now, pollsters will tell you that with older voters leaning McCain these days, any likely voter model is going to favor McCain for now. If Obama moves younger voters as well as many observers assume come October, the likely voter numbers could change.
However, a key assumption needs to be called into question. This year, are the engaged voters skewing older? Are older voters reaching information saturation the earliest? Pew finds a surprise for pollster likely voter assumptions:
Compared with previous election cycles, voter engagement is up among all demographic groups, but has increased more among voters under age 50 than among older voters. Uncharacteristically, the youngest voters -- those under age 30 -- are at least as knowledgeable, and in some cases more knowledgeable, about candidates' positions on Iraq and abortion than are older voters.
The assumption reported by Ambinder and Todd is that younger voters will be making up their minds closer to the election and that this will change the likely voter screen at that time. In other words, the pollsters are correct now (but not predictive of November) and they will also be correct in October (and predictive of November) when they expand their likely voter screen. All we are waiting on is the young voters to tune in and make up their minds (presumably skewing things back toward Obama).

This predicted dynamic flies in the face of the evidence. Pew reports two unprecedented findings in their poll. First, Democrats are expressing stronger interest in the campaign than Republicans for the first time since Pew began tracking in 1992. Second, the percent of voters more interested in the campaign relative to four years ago (usually hovering near 50% across the board) shows a huge jump on the Democratic side to 71%.



If engagement and interest is what makes a voter a likely voter, and if younger voters have reached saturation ahead of older voters reflected in their superior grasp of information, then any likely voter screen that doesn't currently skew Democratic is probably an incorrect likely voter screen.

65 comments

Edmund in Tokyo said...

Is there any information out there about how the various pollsters are deciding who is likely to vote? Without this it's going to be virtually impossible to make sense of the various polls...

Michael said...

any likely voter screen that doesn't currently skew Democratic is probably an incorrect likely voter screen.



And what is the implication of that for the current polling? Does it favor Obama or McCain?

Anonymous said...

"Is there any information out there about how the various pollsters are deciding who is likely to vote?"

Don't they simply ask the person if they're likely to vote in November?

Sean said...

Edmund - unless a polling group specifically discusses its methodology, it's mostly inferential. If Obama's lead is 8 with registered voters but 3 in likely voters, it's easy to infer that the likely voter screen skews toward McCain (i.e, that McCain's voters are more engaged, more info saturated, etc.). You'd have to check on a poll by poll basis.

Michael - all it means is when you read in a poll that Obama is further ahead among registered voters than likely voters, be very very skeptical of the conclusions that pollster has made about likely voters. As Pew finds, the age group and partisan breakdown of how people are engaged this time are dramatically different than past patterns. Pollsters are using old assumptions about older voters being more engaged that don't appear to hold water this time around.

such sweet thunder said...

Sean, to correct your last line:

Pollsters are using old assumptions about older voters being more engaged that don't appear likely to hold water this time around.

I'm as big an Obama supporter as any. But we still need to make this happen. Until election day hits, and the models are proven wrong, they are still illustrate an historical trend. Which, on the whole, is more likely to be closer to the truth than further away. To some extent, we have to change the trend before we can declare it dead.

Anonymous said...

Gee, I wonder why you didn't use the data from the ABC poll with the likely voter model? Or even provide a link to it? Wouldn't that make more sense? Of course it does, but it doesn't support your theory.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1066a308Politics.pdf

Take a look at page 2. There's a huge drop the level of young people and Democrats who say they are certain to vote in November. Not so for the elderly and Republicans.

46% of people ages 18-29 say they are certain to vote in November versus 73% of people over 65.

This isn't the first time you've done something like this.

Sean said...

Anon - impugn me personally if you want, but go back and re-read this (from Ambinder):

"Based on data, studies and experience, pollsters assume that older voters tend to reach information saturation earliest, tune in the earliest, and pick their candidates the earliest. Likely voter models this far out don't oversample older voters per se -- they oversample voters who have made up their mind."

The point of the post is showing how this year the makeup of the most engaged and informed part of the electorate does not resemble past patterns. In past years, the likely voter screens would have been in line with consistent data. Not this year.

This year, it is inarguable that Ds are paying more attention than Rs (unprecedented). Obama's hard support is 70-100% more than McCain's hard support. If info saturation relates to engagement and knowledge of the issues, younger voters are outpacing older voters.

If ABC/WaPo is NOT using the methodology Ambinder and Todd report that pollsters use in their likely voter screens, so be it. If my analysis is wrong, then it has to also be true that NBC's political director doesn't understand how pollsters put together polls. Is that more fun or less fun as a conclusion than that my work is bad faith?

michael said...

Sean, Different Michael here. I think the latest personal attack by yet another "brave" anonymous simply points out what many of us have been saying for weeks. At the bare minimum, anonymous posters should not be allowed on this site. 98% of the trollers and venom-spreaders are anonymous. Esp. when we know trollers are getting trolling points from the McCain website for spamming various blogs.

You posted a highly rational, interesting and intriguing technique on likely voter models, and the anon troll's response was to slander you. It gets old and really detracts from this site, which is a quality one.

Edmund in Tokyo said...

Thanks for posting the link, anonymous (1:30 AM). And it does look like in this case they're assigning likelihood to vote simply by asking people. (Although it doesn't specifically say that.)

Possible reasons for the drop in younger people planning to vote since March:
a) Less interest in the race among Democrats (who skew young) now that the primary is over and there's nothing exciting going on.
b) Obama perceived to have moved to the center / flip-flopped / not be the change people thought, which is de-enthusing younger voters.
c) Just sampling error in the sub-samples.

If it's (a) and/or (b), presumably it should be possible to reenthuse them around election time when there will be more going on and a stronger contrast with McCain, especially if it looks like a close race. But like Such Sweet Thunder said, that's not a foregone conclusion.

John said...

I don't think Anonymous is right.

The ABC/WaPo poll shows 75% of Obama supporters saying that they will definitely for him, and 9% saying that there is a good chance they will vote. For McCain supporters, it has 68% saying that they will definitely vote and 14% saying there is a good chance.

I don't see how that can possible cause Obama's numbers to drop by 9 points from a 12 point lead among all respondents to only a 3 point lead among likely voters.

It seems that they are using additional criteria to determine likely voters (as Sean suggested).

Anonymous said...

Sean you're analysis is off. According to what Nate has just posted the likely voter models don't skew far enough towards McCain. This means that McCain's advantage is UNDERSTATED in the polls, both registered and likely because it is the dems and young people who are engaged and its the republican voters who have yet to make up their mind and are listed as "undecided" on most polls.

John said...

I made a mistake in my above post.

The "good chance" refers to the chance they will change their mind rather than the chance that they will vote.

However, the "definitely vote" numbers are clearly not the only criteria that ABC/WaPo are using to determine likely voters.

Edmund in Tokyo said...

john, I don't think the numbers you're quoting are certainty to vote numbers. They're answers to this question:

3b. (IF NAMED CANDIDATE) Would you definitely vote for (CANDIDATE), or is there a chance you could change your mind and vote for someone else?

That confirms the picture we've been seeing elsewhere that McCain's support is softer than Obama's, but it doesn't tell us whether Obama's many supporters will actually get off their bums and vote.

I couldn't see the certainty to vote numbers by preferred candidate - if they're there that should confirm whether their screen is just based on asking people or not - but it does say that: "resolve to vote has gone from 82 percent to 66 percent among Democrats" which seems consistent with McCain having a big advantage on people who said they'd vote.

John said...

Edmund, you are right, they are using "definitely vote" differently in the two cases. My mistake.

asmodeus said...

Hey, take it easy Sean! You wrote a great post, take confidence in it and ignore those anonymous ignorami who don't have the wit to even think up a name for themselves.

counsellorben said...

Sean,

So anonymous @1:30a says you are full of it, because the ABC poll demonstrates that McCain does have an advantage in likely voter identification.

Then, anonymous @2:51a says you are full of it, because "according to what Nate just posted" (though I am not sure exactly what this anon is referring to), the likely voter identification currently favors Obama.

Interesting quandary.

Regarding the ABC poll, I suspect that, since it is based solely on self-identification of likelihood to vote (without an effort by the pollster to normalize the result), it is not a valid likely voter screen.

Regarding the other poster's assertion, he AGREES with what your thesis.  Sean: "if younger voters have reached saturation ahead of older voters reflected in their superior grasp of information, then any likely voter screen that doesn't currently skew Democratic is probably an incorrect likely voter screen."  anon @2:51a: "it is the dems and young people who are engaged."  This anon then goes on to argue about the effect of this on undecideds, not on the methodology to determine likely voters.

Sean, a very interesting post, which actually reinforces the decision to reduce any current Obama polling lead, since as the likely voter screen moves toward a less skewed result, that intuitively should move a likely voter poll in McCain's favor (all other things being equal).

However, if McCain should take a lead at this point in the race (did I just type that?), then it may be necessary to adjust the damping formula to reduce a McCain lead by less, to reflect this expected skew in likely voter identification.

Rasmus said...

Rasmussen poll alert:
McCain up in VA by 1, without leaners tied.

But I have some issues with these poll.
Without "others"( what you may call two-race-crosstabs), this poll includes roughly 85% whites and 15% blacks.

The 2004 Exit Polls showed that 72% of the electorate was white, 21% black (with 7% others).
We can cut out the others and treat this as 77-23. If Rasmussens poll would include this race split,
Obama would lead 48,5-40,7 (w/o leaners).

If we use a slightly pessimistic screen with 80-20 (and I don´t even know why), he still leads 46,8-42,2. And with an optimistic split like 74-26 he would lead 50-39.

Phillip said...

Rasmus, thanks for the info on the demographics. Couldn't find it on the site, but it's the second poll in a couple of days that under-represents the African American vote (SurveyUSA NC poll also underestimates blacks, and females). Not sure what to think about it on the whole, other than if Rasmussen and SurveyUSA continue to shift demographics favorably for McCain, polling within the margin of error bodes well for Obama.

Rasmus said...

phillip,

I don´t wonder that you couldn´t find it on the site, I simply calculated that from the numbers they gave (Obama wins 90% of the black vote, McCain ahead 52-36% with whites)

Sanjay said...

Sean,

let me second an earlier posters comment about anonymous posters. This is supposed to be a thoughtful website- I enjoy both the posts and the comments(mainly). I would go one step further- anybody who wishes to post needs to registered and have their identity verified. I think it will improve the quality of the conversation.

Rob in CT said...

Well, I sure *hope* that this election is different from the past vis-a-vis turnout from younger voters. The "old people vote" is pretty tried and true. I've witnessed it recently in my town, voting on the budget (repeated voted down by a voting block of seniors). If the numbers suggest this year will really be different, hurray... but I won't feel confident until it's all over.

Pete Kent said...

How do you explain then that the two leading tracking polls -- Rasmussen and Gallup -- move roughly in tandem? Rasmussen uses a likely voter screen where Gallup uses registered voters.

It is an interesting point about the level of engagement of young versus old. It seems the old folks who are paying less attention have made up their minds. McCain can bank their votes.

As far as the youth vote goes, it may still be up for grabs. While Obama has a certain youthful dynamism, he is being increasingly portrayed as humorless and sententious. Over time, he may wear down his personality advantage.

Worse as these younger voters continue to scrutinize the issues they may become more and more disaffected with Obama's shifting policy positions. If we are to believe what we have been told that so much of his youth support comes from his opposition to the war, Obama's steamrolling "Iraq Problem (CNN Anderson Cooper 360 lead story last night), may wind up haunting him.

On the war, McCain has very effectively put him in a box and is letting him twist in the wind on having announced his policy position before having done any fact finding. The longer he waits to go to Iraq and Afghanistan (still not scheduled) the more the damage will accumulate. The trip to Europe will seem odd – a Presidential candidate stumping in Berlin? Wait and see how that spins!

Obama’s not going to the war zone right now is a political calculation here that he must do in order to stop the bleeding in the polls before the convention or he risks a draft Hillary movement in Denver. The ruling forces on the left that control the Democratic party made it very clear the week of July 4th that they will tolerate no apostasy on Iraq and the pull out. Before he wins any potential votes in the middle by taking a reasoned approach to the war he will lose his left wing base.

Obama is looking to buy time and knows that the trip to Iraq will only showcase the foolishness of his plans. As the WaPo editorial of the other day made clear, the sorts of soft timetables that the Maliki government is talking about are much further in the future than Obama's 16 months. And even the NYTs had to report that Obama while having extended his charisma to the Iraqi people they are fearful of his pull out plans, as they know full well their security still depends on the presence of US forces and more time is needed to consolidate the present victory.

Afghanistan is an interesting dodge by Obama, claiming that that is where the focus should be. McCain has very effectively made the case that Obama has abandoned his responsibly in the Senate there and his opposition to the Iraqi surge points out that he has no cred as a tactical commander.

The War issue has now fully pivoted on Obama and he must feel like he is staring into the barrel of a howitzer.

To return the theme of young people, no one feels the pinch at the pump more than they do. Obama has a nice plan for the Birkenstock crowd (but those were the kids of the 70s). These young people will want more immediate relief. Again, John McCain and the Republican party offer a position they can understand and relate to: find more oil here in the US of A.

Rasmussen will be out soon. I expect further tightening and if the present drumbeat on Iraq continues to batter Obama, you may see McCain on top by Monday's reports in both trackers.

Rob in CT said...

"The War issue has now fully pivoted on Obama and he must feel like he is staring into the barrel of a howitzer."

What is the weather like on your planet?

IMHO said...

Pete Kent-

Good observation on the budding characterization of Obama as humorless. If it sticks, he will come off as a prententious know-it-all.

While that may fit the characterization of 20 somethings straight out of college and lacking in real life maturity and be missed in their echo chamber, it will play very hard aginst Obama.

Calling people racists may not be enough at that point. A black Michael Dukakis doesn't lose because he is black. He loses because he is Michael Dukakis.

Juris said...

Nice article, Sean. I don't think that any of us should be generalizing about "LV" screens, however, since (as has been discussed here before on 538 as well as in a long series of articles by Mark Blumenthal 4 years ago) no two pollsters' LV procedures are alike.

Some use just one screening question, some use two or three, some use a half dozen. Some adjust for party ID and some do not. Some norm the likely voter total to some overall turnout assumption, and some do not.

In 2004, the most restrictive LV model was by Gallup, but they didn't weight the results by party ID. Their results overall were pretty far off base. Zogby, on the other hand, which does weight their data generally, did not (and still does not, to my knowledge) weight by party ID. And they hit the 2004 election pretty much on the head.

I don't think we can even generalize about whether LV screens favor one party over the other because they depend, as you and some others have suggested, upon how mobilized voters are during the period when the particular poll occurred. Here's an example from my own experience.

I did a statewide survey in early fall 2004 in MI in which suddenly the party ID shifted in a GOP direction by 5 points from what it had been in previous rounds of the same survey within the past year. In that survey, the "predicted vote" favored Bush by 3 points. It may be that we hit the field about the time the Swiftboat ads were all in the news. Kerry actually won the state by 2 points, so those extra Republican resondents in our survey provided us with a misleading prediction.

If we had done a Rasmussen on those numbers, weighting to the previous year's party ID, we'd have hit the November 2004 vote balance right on the head. Then again, I don't think this is a universally valid approach -- just take a look at how sharply party ID has been shifting Democratic in some states (e.g., Wisconsin) in the last two or three years,

As a final point, I don't think anybody here should feel obligated to respond to drive-by anonymous posters.

John H said...

I'm not sure what Senate responsibility you're talking about, Pete.

Obama's committee is European Affairs, a subcommittee of Foreign Relations. The idea is that he should look into Afghanistan because America's NATO allies are primarily in Europe. That's a ridiculous claim.

If he were to work on Afghanistan it would tread on the toes of other committees including Armed Services, which has held six hearings on Afghanistan. The ranking Republican, one Sen McCain, hasn't turned up to a single one. I think that might undermine any future claims he makes on this point.

Pete Kent said...

John H:

It is now common currency in the campaign that Obama has failed to hold any hearing on Iraq which was under his jurisdiction. Dissembling on this truth will only appear to be excuses.

McCain has nothing to fear from failure to attend hearings in the Senate. he owns the issue of having been to and studied Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your argument will go no where.

Obama is sinking . . . .

Tant pis pour vous!

Dale Petrie said...

I've been curious about the disparity between what pollsters will say are "likely voters" this time around and what the actual outcome will be since before Obama threw his hat in the ring. I've been among those who have supported Obama since he first announced, indeed I was one of those who thought "this guy will be President someday" when I saw his 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, and I've had a suspicion that no matter what the definition of "likely voter" is this year, it's going to understate his support, leading to a surprisingly large margin of victory for Obama in the general election (assuming he made it that far).

The thing I thought all along was that for a variety of reasons, if Obama was the nominee, he was likely to increase voter turnout. My theory has been that in a nation where in 2004, 120 million people voted in a 51/49 election, that left somewhere between 80 and 90 million who were eligible to vote but who did not (or to look at it another way, 1.5 times as many people voted for no one as voted for either candidate). And given that more people voted in 2004 as both a real number and as a percentage of eligible voters (correct me if I'm wrong on this), that it means that in every election we've ever had, "none of the above" actually won.

To me, I thought that there were a couple of very good reasons so many stay home, and that Obama was unique in a number of ways that would speak to a not unsizeable portion of this group. My first thought was that the youth vote has always been less engaged then it should have been come election day...it seems every year the younger people support the Democrat, but then do not come out in the numbers we hope for when the first Tuesday in November rolls around. My thinking is that this is due to the fact that as a young person, you have better, aka more exciting things to do, whether they be hanging out with friends, playing Guitar Hero, sewing your wild oats...whatever it might be.

It seems to me that politics would need to be more "interesting" and one would need to have an almost "rockstar" appeal about him to energize these people enough to decide that hey, it's worth an hour of my life that I could be spending on my hedonistic pursuits to support this person. Clearly, Obama is unique in modern history in posessing these characteristics.

Second, I believe that Obama's race also factors into it both directly and indirectly. Directly, it helps energize the youth vote even more because it would be an historic event to elect the first black President (in fact the first [fill in the blank] Presidential hopeful would always have this impact among the youth of the nation in my opinion). But I think more indirectly, a candidate like Obama impacts the turnout because of his race simply because he's not the same old same old.

What I mean here is that one reason that is cited among many who don't vote, and I'm not talking about the youth vote specifically here, is that there really IS not a choice. In every election we've had at this level, the choices have been two rich old white men.

Now there's a huge swath of America which essentially considers one rich old white man by and large interchangable with any other rich old white man, and let's face it, it's a pretty abstract process to trace back how one's every day life (if you're not a member of the investment class) is impacted by who the President is. So, there's a prevaling attitude that who the President is doesn't really affect ME, and that's what most of these non-voters are really more concerned about.

And this is not always selfishness, some of it is self preservation. Say you're working 3 jobs where you're paid hourly, and you're barely making enough money to support your family, keep them fed and keep a roof over their heads. Well, you "could" vote, but to do so, that's going to eat up a couple hours of your time, and maybe that costs you $15 or so, and in your household, every penny counts, much less $15!

I think Obama speaks to this demographic as well, because he addresses some of the socio-economic domestic issues that most political candidates tend to gloss over. With Obama, it's a much more direct and clear path between him being elected President and people seeing a change in their lives for the better. So this part really isn't at ALL about race (with the notable exception that non white voters are more likely to be in this socio-economic strata), and probably has as much to do with the deterioration of the standard of living, particularly under the Bush administration, for many who otherwise wouldn't see the impact, as it does with Obama's decidedly populist message on the domestic front.

So for all these reasons, I thought from day one that Obama would excite people who probably wouldn't vote if he weren't in the race, and I think the Primaries and Caucuses bore that out. So that has led me to question even more, with so many states having same day voter registration and so much time left between when pollsters pick their polling groups and when the elections are held, isn't the concept of the likely voter going to potentially VASTLY understate Obama's support?

I wonder the following as well...how current is their information...are they looking at people who voted in 2004 or 2006 to decide who might be a likely voter this time, or are they looking at people who voted in the primaries and caucuses, or are they randomly sampling the entire population and asking how likely they are to vote? How do they make this determination, and is there any way they could make this determination that would NOT understate Obama's true level of support. It simply seems to me that even if they're using 2008 Primary/Caucus data, they're going to undersample the new people who are going to come into the process.

I made the statement a year and a half ago that Obama would have a much harder time getting the nomination (with Hillary running) than he would winning the election (no matter who won the Republican nomination), because with Hillary, he had a real contest, but with the Republicans, he had this secret weapon of being able to vastly outperform anyone's turnout predictions. No, I don't think he'll bring all 90 million of those non voters to the table, but even 3% of them would have wiped out Bush's 2004 margin of victory. What if that # is 5% or 10%?

Do you have any insight as to how the pollsters are incorporating this? Are they assuming that in spite of all the reasons Obama "should" bump up turnout (the ones I've mentioned and others), they really don't think it will happen when push comes to shove, or is there any danger that they are building assumptions into their samples that might not bear out, or which might recognize the phenomenon but either vastly over or understate it?

Any thoughts anyone has on this would be appreciated.

Anonymous humanist said...

Pessimistically: perhaps it is not that older voters tend to be more engaged, but rather that older voters are more likely to vote regardless of their level of engagement? (I'm not sure we have evidence on this question. Do you ask in exit polls "how engaged were you throughout the campaign"?)

jsh1120 said...

Sean, good post as usual.

My first thought on reading your comments was similar to some others'; that the huge apparent drop in "certainty" to vote in November in the ABC/WaPo survey was noteworthy and tends to run counter to your post.

Frankly, though, I'm inclined to discount the results of this single question. It's hardly surprising that interest among younger voters has declined more steeply than others at this stage. And I suspect that actual turnout may still be lower for younger voters in November.

However, as you imply, the underlying knowledge, attention paid, and interest is so much higher in the younger cohorts that I suspect the traditional correlation between age and turnout will be significantly reduced this year, even compared to its relatively low level in 2004compared to recent history.

Pollsters should be forgiven, I think, for sticking with a relatively conservative, historically reasonable position at this point. By the same token, I suspect that at least some of what I suspect will be a growing Obama lead after the conventions will be attributed to attitude change when an important factor will be a shift in weighting.

Pete Kent said...

Dale Petrie:

You raise a really good point. To be honest I bet most of my instincts are based on an old model of the electorate and have not taken into account the very substantial number of new registrations that have occured this year. At the end of the day, I may need to throw out my old way of thinking (which probably is based off the 1980 Reagan Democrat model, that has much validity in all cycles since, even if the impact of apostate democrats in contributing to republican wins has declined).

That said, much of what Obama's success will depend upon is whether or not he can continue to lead a movement or just wage a campaign. What I am seeing here is the latter. He has been forced into conforming his message to poll driven demographics and he is losing much of the specialness that was the hallmark of his early candidacy.

Also, issues matter and they do not favor him to any significant degree, indeed as I have argued elsewhere, they seemed to have turned agaisnt him and are getting worse.

Finally, his decision to forgo public funding has forced him to spend a good deal of time on fundraising, and while he would like to maintain it is a grassroots thing and the manna is simply falling down from heaven, he is actually having to hustle.

Someone who hustlers is a hustler, aka a prostitute. He is tarnishing his image further and distracting himself from his campagin.

John McCain will be in MI today again today speaking to auto workers. I think it will be difficult for him to win that state, but the fact that he is there shows empathy that may help him elsewhere. PA?

Barack Obama has no public events scheduled today. That is odd. What is he up to? It could be he is courting big donors and bundlers one on one. He needs their money.

Your points remain provactive and valid and worthy of factoring into the calculus.

Chris said...

Well, I had hoped Sean had left this blog, as I hadn't read any posts by him in awhile. Too bad he is back. While this post is not quite as immature or offensive as many of his past posts, it is still barely analysis. Just because you put up a figure with data does not mean you have thought carefully about the question.

Modeler said...

Sean,

Interesting post. Thanks.

1:30 Anonymous,

Also an interesting post, but I think people aren't taking it as seriously as they should because of your tone. For those who didn't check out the link, here are the relevant numbers:

"Certain" to vote in November:

Age 18-29
March 2008: 66%
Now: 46%

Age 65+
March 2008: 79%
Now: 73%

Democrats
March 2008: 82%
Now: 66% <------- Hmmm.....

Republicans
March 2008: 83%
Now: 83% <------- Hmmm.....

83% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats now claim that they are "certain" to vote in November. This is probably how ABC got it's likely voter screen. Among registered voters, they have 37-27 Dem-Rep. But among likely voters, it's 33-32.

I think it's important not to confuse enthusiasm for a candidate with importance placed on the election. Every poll I've seen so far shows that the "importance" gap is smaller than the "enthusiasm" gap, and this is no doubt helped by Republicans who aren't excited by John McCain but are motivated by their dislike of Barack Obama. According to the poll, these people make up 30% of John McCain's support, and it looks like they're set on voting.

Chris said...

To the modeler. I don't think the 20% drop-off in likelihood of voting among Democrats is that wrong. In March, the primary was in full force among the Dems, and it is now over. That drop-off is the Hillary Clinton supporters who are not excited about either candidate. Obama has enthusiasm among his core, but there is a significant minority of Democrats that are also unhappy with how the primary played out and unlikely to vote. I think this is normal. Add in FISA and the left-wingers who were behind Obama who are now less enthusiastic, and I think this is right. Obama is having trouble keeping enthusiasm on the left and among the Dem. voters in the center that supported Clinton.

OH 09 Dem said...

Sean,
Very interesting post. I would say one thing about LV screen and LV models. Ohio, like many other states has recently adopted a no-fault early voting process. We saw Obama make use of this during the primaries. This means that we have a 30-day window to make sure that people (whether you want to call them young, unlikely, unrepresented, etc., ) vote. I can positively tell you that this is going to make a world of difference. When you have 30 days to march people down to the Board of Elections, or provide them with absentee ballots to fill out, you are going to increase turnout among these people tremendously, especially given the underlying strong fundamentals.

Stephen said...

Dale Petrie:

The other factor I think that makes people think their vote doesn't matter is the electoral college. If you live in a strongly red or strongly blue state, your vote is largely symbolic and requires you to go to a lot of trouble to have your voice heard in a way that actually won't change anything about your day to day life. I live in Maryland and had felt that way for a long time, though did symbolically go to the trouble of getting absentee ballots while I was away at college.

Anyway, I think Obama's potential redrawing of the electoral map is another factor that will really increase turnout. I'd guess that if a state that is historically one color has a chance of flipping, or if typical blowout states seem close, it will increase voter enthusiasm dramatically (while probably not depressing enthusiasm much in states that are typically battlegrounds). Given that so much of the country is typically locked in to one party year after year, I don't think it's really any wonder that so many are indifferent about their say in the process.

footsy said...

To understand the generational differences in attitudes toward voting, I'm going to reach into my toolkit of info regarding what motivates people from different generations to volunteer for charitable/social causes.

Those who grew up on the 30s and early 40s look to volunteering - and voting? - as a DUTY, and will participate regardless of their level of identification & engagement with a candidate or ballot proposition. That's the 65 and older voters, folks.

Those Boomers who grew up in the fifties and 60s look to volunteering as part of a MOVEMENT. They will be engaged when the effort matches their personal values, and then they might move on to other movements if they perceive that the movement is drifting or selling out.

Those who grew up in the 70s and 80s identify with a BRAND. They handle volunteering (and voting?) as a statement about lifestyle and identity.

What I see as relevant here is that older voters are more likely to vote, regardless of their enthusiasm for a candidate, because it is their responsibility to vote.

In the current election cycle the Democratic Boomers might have attached early to a movement - esp. regarding the war in Iraq - but might drop their enthusiasm and perhaps refrain from voting - if they perceive Obama to be abandoning their movement.

The Generations X and Y (1970s and 80s youth) who are active in the Democratic campaign are identifying with Obama's "change" brand, which also presents youth as a part of the brand. I don't see that identification by younger voters changing unless Obama confuses the brand by choosing some "same old" old rich white guy as a running mate.

(My other assumption here that must be stated is that McCain's behaviors in this cycle cannot win him the White House, but Obama's can lose the election by failing to keep and increase his vote numbers. I believe that it is the Obama campaign that is driving the election cycles, and McCain is just reacting instead of defining the campaign.)

Stephen said...

My comment earlier works mainly for Presidential politics which have more of a chance of bringing in new or low information voters if it seems close. Local and state politics seem to take some more research and engagement cause of the comparably little coverage they get.

Likely Voter said...

According to Pollster.com, Obama actually does better with the Gallup likely voter model.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/likely_voters_and_2008.php

But the difference was not that big and maybe the problem lies with the ABC poll.

It seems to me though that polling is all weird this election. Just look at the last two Newsweek polls. Maybe all the pollssters should just report their raw full registered number at least until the fall and stop all this 'weighting' guesswork. Or at least always publish both numbers...the 'raw' and the 'weighted guess'

The Numantine said...

I've never liked this likely voter nonsense. Perhaps it's because for decades I've focused my Voter Reg. and GOTV efforts on unlikely voters--College students, youth, low-income renters.

This appears to be a year for the unlikely voter. African-American and youth turnout will be higher this November. Any LV litmus test that doesn't recognize that is severely flawed.

judas_priest said...

As someone noted above, Likely Voter screens are frequently treated as proprietary information by the polling companies.

There are a number of approaches, and each approach can use different specific measures. Ideally, the best way is to combine these different approaches into a broader index, but this takes interviewer time and costs money. Public pollers have little incentive to spend the extra money early in the season, for they can always write off "errors" as temporal rather than methodological.

One approach is to look at voting intent, with a question like "How likely is it that you will vote this November?

Another is to look at past behavior, asking questions about whether the interviewee voted in the most recent election, or perhaps several past elections, or asking abouot whether they always vote, generally vote, vote sometimes, etc.

Yet a third is to ask about subjective involvement with the current electoral campaaigns. You could ask about how much interest they have, how much attention they are paying and similar questions.

Demographic weighting models can also impact LV models .

Back in the days, many years ago, when I was teaching Poli Sci classes in Public Opinion and Elections as well as doing private polling, I had a student take one of our private polls and do a term paper on which measures gave the best results in determining whether a respondent actually voted. He checked the respondents against the voting records (we had used a registered voter sampling frame).

The particular election for which the poll was done was a low turnout election (special election on a referendum issue). He found that the subjective estimate of likelihood of voting was by far the best measure. Hoping that my memory after 35 years is still correct, 85% of those who said that they definitely would vote did so, 50% of those who said they probably would vote did so, and nobody else voted. (We did have one respondent who said that he wasn't sure if he would vote since he might have to be out-of-town on election day, but that if he were in town he definitely would vote.)

We used only that screen for subequent surveys in expected low turnout elections, but it wasn't as effective in general elections.

Frank from Germany said...

Anon @ 1:30, Modeler re. ABC poll: What I found interesting on that poll was them reporting that "in this four-night poll, Obama held a much larger lead Sunday
compared with Thursday through Saturday results." (p.4, 2nd para). ABC just sees it as a an indication of the changeability within the electorate still being high.

However, another plausible explanation may be that there is a difference between people that are out on Friday and Saturday nights in mid-July, and those who spend these nights at home answering to polls. In other words - I suspect the ABC poll to have over-sampled seniors, people with week-end jobs (e.g. retail, healthcare, taxi driving), and similar groups, and under-sampled groups like college students, or families with kids that have taken a full week off after July 4th. So, it may well be that the sample structure was completely different from March (where college was still going on, and the weather probably less attractive for spending a week-end outdoors), and ABC was actually comparing apples to pears. I think, a few more polls will be needed to find out whether the youth (as reported by PEW) or the seniors (as reported by ABC) will be more likely to vote in November.

Pete Kent: "The trip to Europe will seem odd – a Presidential candidate stumping in Berlin? Wait and see how that spins!" I think you are missing some important points here. First of all, there are some 20,000 American citizens living in and around Berlin (which gave Obama something like a 70-30 vote in the local Democrats Abroad primary), and Germany still hosts the largest number of US soldiers in the world after the USA and Iraq.

More importantly, however: According to the German Foreign Affairs Office, since WWII some 18 million US soldiers plus there families have been living for an extended time in Germany. Many of them have made friends here, and a good number have taken home a German wife. In the 1950s, nearly 600,000 Germans immigrated to the USA, plus some 200,000 in the 1960s.

Let's, for simplification, assume that 450,000 of the 1950's German immigrants to the USA were female, in average 22 years old by the time of immigration (i.e. born between 1938 and 1948), and still alive (the other 150,000 either being male, or having died in the meantime). That would mean they account for something like 5% of all American women between 70 and 80 years.

These women are likely to still have friends and relatives in Germany, with whom they regularly correspond and/or visit. A few personal examples: Friends of my parents-in-law, who reside in Texas, just wanted to pay us a visit a few weeks ago, but for health reasons decided to only visit their relatives in Munich and skip the travel from there to Hamburg. My god-father, living near Boston, has visited us something like three times over the last five years. My god-aunt is regularly informing me about the well being of her two sisters (one in CA, one in NJ), both of whom I visited with my parents when I was a child.

In other words: An Obama speech in Berlin, which succeeds in further fueling the already high enthusiasm for his candidacy among Germans, has enormous potential for reaching back into McCain's core demographics, via German seniors talking / phoning / e-mailing to their siblings / cousins / school friends that are now living in the USA. No other location in Europe, with the possible exception of Rome, could provide such a multiplier effect.

As to the event itself: As it appears now, the speech will be held at the Berlin Victory Column, which is something of the equivalent to the Washington Monument, and located opposite of the Brandenburg Gate in some 1,3 km distance from it (provides for nice backdrops of the gate, while allowing Mrs. Merkel to save face). Check out for details:

http://www.ypfp.org/obamas_berlin_speech_can_he_have_his_cake_and_eat_it_too

The last foreigner who spoke publicly in open in Berlin was the Dalai Lama this Mai - he attracted a crowd of some 25,000. Public viewing of the European Soccer Championship this summer attracted some 200,000 people, and the Love Parade, which until 2006 used to
take place in mid-July(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Parade) attracted up to 1.5 million people.

This gives you something like the lower and upper ceiling of the attendance you may expect. My personal estimate is at least 150,000 listeners. If Obama's team can (with the short time still remaining) organise some live music and performance ("Die Ärzte" would be the obvious choice; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_%C3%84rzte) and turn it into a Love Parade-like happening, you may even get more than half-a-million people there, and possibly live coverage on MTV. In terms of imagery and PR, it will be a knock-out, even if the American punditry may criticise it for location and content.

Last but not least: I think there is a fundamental difference between an "Atlantic" candidate like Kerry (partly grown-up in Berlin, based in MA) and a "Pacific" candidate like Obama (Indonesia, HI) devoting time to Europe. In the case of Kerry, it served for re-inforcing his (narrow) "Atlantic" / New England background. Obama's profile, OTOH, will be broadened further, adding an "atlantic touch" to his existing "Mid-West to Pacific appeal".

whispers said...

Interesting story, footsy. Neat how you pigeonhole entire generations into neat little stereotypes.

Older people vote at higher rates because they have more time on their hands, esp. retirees.

You can discard the rest of your stories as unnecessary and unverified hypotheses.

footsy said...

whispers -

It's not unverified nonsense. This is a quick and breezy summation; I didn't give you the details of the psychographic studies. Of course the model is a generalization - the neat little pigeonholes are a simplification.

That's what models are - they are a map of the territory, but they are not the territory. But they do capture some sense of different cultural values for folks raised in different times.

People make choices for a variety of reasons; humans' behavior is harder to explain than that of ants or carbon atoms. But don't attack a model as a simplification - because that is what models are there to do.

All the talk about voter turnout in historical perspective presents an assumption that the present election will follow similar patterns to previous elections - that's a model.

Your own explanation (about retired people having time on their hands) is also a generalization. But I won't attack it, because it alSO contains some truth in it. It is an incomplete model; it does not map all the variables. And neither did my generational culture model.

michael said...

Dale Petrie's post is on target, for sure. Obama is a new phenomenon and the McCain has the truly difficult task of making him seem at once like something dangerous, risky and exotic and, at the same time, a conventional, hustling flip-flopping politician. No mean trick, and I don't see the McCain crew as having the skills to pull that off. Petrie's main point is worth reiterating. The voter models do nothing to account for the MASSIVE increase in turnout from Blacks and youth, as well as the underreported story that Mccain is suffering a 15 point gender gap and a 40 point gap with Latinos. If Af-Ams makeup 18% of the vote (for instance) rather than last time's 13%, and go for Obama 95-5, both of which are highly probable, that makes it game over. Af-Ams, youth and Latino are almost always underpolled, due to the landline issue, whereas as stay-at-home white seniors are pretty reachable on their landlines.

Obama has two challenges: His (1/2 race) and the Muslim smear. My hope and belief is that the folks who will not vote for him because of one of those two reasons would not vote for a Dem anyway, and will be more than counterbalanced by the new and enthusiastic support from young, Af-Am, and Latino voters...

Anonymous said...

michael,

As a person who posts Anonymously here now and then, I'd like to mention that if it really bugs you, you can always leave. Maybe all the posts should be anonymous, and you can choose to sign your name in the post instead. Would that be better? Now why don't you quit being a control freak and start talking about polling. Thanks.

-- Anonymous

Modeler said...

Wow, some quality posts in this sleepy little thread.

I think this has been asked before, but I don't remember seeing an answer: Does anyone have any data on how much of an impact GOTV efforts have? I'd imagine that very few likely voter models take them into account, but it would be fun to incorporate into any turnout model.

Turnout, if I remember correctly, was the one area Nate struggled with during the primaries. It would be fun, and useful, to think of a way to model turnout for the general.

Frank, good point about the Sunday polling. I wonder if ABC tried to weight its poll to correct for demographic differences among the days; I really wish these pollsters would offer more transparency.

I think the fact that young voters are more knowledgeable about key issues is fascinating. With all the focus on the internet as an organizing and fund-raising tool, I think its role as content provider has been ironically overlooked. I wonder to what extent young people are more well-informed because they are more likely to fact-check online.

Modeler said...

One more thing: check out the "movable" statistics on page 6 of the ABC/WP poll.

Most movable
White Catholics: 39%
Clinton supporters: 36
Independents: 35
Moderates: 35
Moderate/liberal Republicans: 42
Whites: 34
Married women: 33
Unmarried men: 31
Age 18-29: 31

Least movable
Blacks: 7%
Liberal Dems: 12
Obama primary supporters: 17
Conservative Republicans: 19
Liberals: 20
Age 65+: 22
Conservatives: 22
Single women: 23

I would love to know how these match up against the variance of the coefficients in the regression model.

Cugel said...

"83% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats now claim that they are "certain" to vote in November. This is probably how ABC got it's likely voter screen. Among registered voters, they have 37-27 Dem-Rep. But among likely voters, it's 33-32.

This is why I HATE likely voter screens being used by different pollsters! It makes it almost impossible to tell anything about what's going on! It becomes like comparing apples and oranges! Honestly, who knows who's likel to vote in July? We know that registering to vote tends to mean that people end up voting, but exactly HOW likely?

We've seen lots of new registrations for Democrats, which SUGGESTS that there are lots of new voters who won't necessarily be caught by tight voter screens in July, but how can it be PROVED? It CAN'T!

Flat Fact: We Just Don't Know!

NATE has talked about this problem, the difference between "precision" and "accuracy." Using a likely voter screen probably increases precision, i.e. the probability that you can spot trends from poll to poll by the same company and making the grouping tighter.

But, it is wildly inaccurate to apply a likely voter screen in July. Who the hell knows who's going to vote in November? Thus, apply the wrong screen and you make ALL the results of your polls essentially meaningless.

We know old people are going to vote because they've voted before. Are young people going to turn out in equal numbers? Maybe not! If they don't then the race will be very tight. If they do, then it's a blowout for Obama.

Worse, since other pollsters apply different screens, we it's much tougher to compare polls by different companies.

It's much better to publish only the Registered Voters. That's gives us an Obama +8 lead which is pretty constant (somewhere between 8% and 10% of registered voters).

Is that really accurate? Of course not! The race is definitely closer than 8%, but is it 3%? 4%, 5%? Who knows? It all "depends" on who you think is likely to vote. That's why Nate's model is so interesting, even if it is UNPROVEN!

Sometime in late September, maybe October this question ("how certain are you to vote?") becomes meaningful, but young people are DOING STUFF in July!

Americans, even ones who say they are "following the election closely" probably are NOT really doing anything of the sort.

Everybody who reads or posts on this site is a FREAK! We're WEIRDOS who actually enjoy talking about politics and analyzing polling in the middle of July! That Ain't Normal people!

It's asking a LOT of voters to be ready to vote in July.

If it were easy to predict who's likely to vote and how the election will trend by November, Nate's model would be a LOT less complicated.

You'd just take the registered voter totals, add in the likely voter screen and VOILA! You've got your result.

Some sites actually attempt this based entirely on some arcane technical formula based on computer trading markets and expert opinions: http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/PollyVote/

http://Polyvote claims to have had a "near perfect prediction of the 2004 election."

"Polly says McCain trails at 47.7% vs. Obama 52.3%.
Polly sees the Democrats ahead by 4.6%."


I certainly won't argue for Pollyvote, but they have as good a chance of being right as the Washington Post Likely Voter Screen, and in 2004 they were a LOT better at predicting the actual outcome of the election than Gallup!

Anonymous said...

WOW

If 12% more republicans have given this election more thought than 2004 and are 16% MORE dissatissfied than in 2004 then this election is over barring a MAJOR (10x Rev Wright) political earthquake.

Anonymous said...

The problem with using a "registered voters" screen for polling this far from the election is that some states allow very late or even same-day registration. This is an important bias for projections since students, minorities, transients, the poor, and first-time voters are likely to register late so they won't be tracked in polls during this early time in the campaign. This is likely to undercount support for candidates with this kind of support.

Most years this isn't much of a problem because turnout among the unregistered is so low but it may be a factor in this election, particularly with so many states reducing their registration requirements.

michael said...

"Anonymous said...

The problem with using a "registered voters" screen for polling this far from the election is that some states allow very late or even same-day registration. This is an important bias for projections since students, minorities, transients, the poor, and first-time voters are likely to register late so they won't be tracked in polls during this early time in the campaign. This is likely to undercount support for candidates with this kind of support.

Most years this isn't much of a problem because turnout among the unregistered is so low but it may be a factor in this election, particularly with so many states reducing their registration requirements.
July 18, 2008 1:56 PM "

good point, and conversely, in swing states like Indiana and Georgia with onerous voter ID requirements , many first-time and late-deciding voters (like those nuns in their 80s) could be turned away. Wonder how that gets factored into LV models?

Cugel said...

"Anonymous said...

The problem with using a "registered voters" screen for polling this far from the election is that some states allow very late or even same-day registration. This is an important bias for projections since students, minorities, transients, the poor, and first-time voters are likely to register late so they won't be tracked in polls during this early time in the campaign. This is likely to undercount support for candidates with this kind of support."


Non-registered voters are CERTAINLY not going to make it past ANY "likely voter" screen! If you're not even registered, how likely are you to vote? Not very.

Q: "Are you registered to vote?"
A: "No, but I'm probably going to register before the election."
Q: "Thank you for your time. No further questions."


You can argue that many former non-voters may register and vote later in the year, but then a poll of registered voters will catch them.

But, there is simply NO way to logically include people who "may" register and "might" vote if they ever decide to register -- for whatever reason.

Modeler said...

Cugel said:

Non-registered voters are CERTAINLY not going to make it past ANY "likely voter" screen!

Not true, according to this survey.

ARG: New registrants can be classified as a likely voter and it is also possible for someone stating that they intend to register on election day but are not registered when we talk to them.

Cue Cugel rant about ARG. :-) However, I could imagine including some unregistered voters who appear highly likely to vote. For instance, a voter could be considered if the voter is less than 22 years old and the state has same-day registration.

I thought this nugget from pollster.com was interesting:

True, media pollsters have spent decades developing likely voter "models" to identify the true electorate, but most of that research identifies characteristics that are proven to predict turnout a few weeks before the election

It's remarkable that there are not more long-term models available.

Cugel said...

Not true, according to this survey.

ARG: New registrants can be classified as a likely voter and it is also possible for someone stating that they intend to register on election day but are not registered when we talk to them.

Cue Cugel rant about ARG. :-) However, I could imagine including some unregistered voters who appear highly likely to vote. For instance, a voter could be considered if the voter is less than 22 years old and the state has same-day registration.


What's wrong with ARG? or any other pollster for that matter, unless it's Zogby Interactive's online polls for obvious reasons.

I doubt any other pollsters use such a loose "likely voter" screen that would ever accept NON-REGISTERED voters Gallup and Rasmussen don't.

If somebody says they will register on election day, that doesn't mean they will do either. But, then someone saying they are "certain" to vote doesn't mean they will vote. But, it's a good bet that the unregistered won't do either.

After all, unless they've just moved or something they have ignored voting for presumably a long time. In the case of the young, they might have an excuse.

"But, I remember I went and registered immediately when came of age. Took the buggy down and registered, just like that! Why, I remember it like it was yesterday! The Civil War had been over for a while by then and we'd just come out of the great shoe crisis of '88! . . ."

WHOA! I was channeling John McCain there for a minute. Have to stop that. Hey! You kids get off my lawn!

; ^ )

Frank from Germany said...

Don't know if there is still anybody reading in this quiet corner outside the troll stream - amyway:

Cugel: "We know old people are going to vote because they've voted before." In fact, we even don't know that. I have made the observation that old people may stop voting when they start getting serious health problems, for feeling they don't have a right to decide on a future that probably is not their's anymore. However, I don't have any idea how common this sort of attitude is.

Modeler: "I wonder to what extent young people are more well-informed because they are more likely to fact-check online." This is probably one factor. Another one should be the increase in education levels from generation to generation. Finally, I feel Daile Petry made an extremely worthwhile point when noting that so far, for many, in particular young voters, "choices have been two rich old white men", which is not really stimulating young people's desire to become informed. This year's choice, however, is different. In short, it probably comes down to the troika of motivation (new type of candidate), ability (better educated) and opportunity (on-line
information access).

Daile Petry: Credit to you to have brought a number of my ideas to the point. I watched Kerry's speech at the 2004 convention, and even though the speech itself was pretty good, my immediate reaction was" He is not going to win. Too much 1968, and not enough 2004. Too much New England, no Latino and no mid-west appeal." The first time I saw Obama was in a CNN interview on the evening of his 2006 election to the Senate, and my immediate reaction, just as yours, was "He can make it as President, because he is fresh and new in style". I did, however, not expect Obama's time to come already in 2008 ..

KQuark said...

I cannot begin to tell you how many problems I have with this poll. Start off with them withholding results that favored Obama to the inconsistency results for RV and LV. ABC especially has been trying to make this race look close.

Modeler said...

Frank,

I'm still reading. :-)

Good point about the education differences, but the trend in improving education has been going on for a while now, and Pew says:

One pattern that differs from previous surveys of political knowledge is that younger voters are significantly more knowledgeable about the candidates' positions than are older voters.

I think the major factors that have changed are the role of the internet and, as you mentioned, the novelty of the candidates. I'd guess displeasure with the direction of the country also motivates those who are going to inherit it. I think your troika is reasonable.

Frank from Germany said...

Modeler: Back for a chill-out from the front threads.

One thought that has been on my mind for some times is that contraception has increased the probability of children not just being 'produced', but actually being wanted. This should have improved (and, according to my observation, actually has improved) parent-child relations, which in turn leads to less generational conflict and younger generations assuming more responsibility at an earlier point in time. Not across all social strata, of course (I am aware of the AA single mother phenomenon in the USA, and in parts of the Turkish community in Germany, as presumably as well in parts of the Latino community in the USA, parent-children relations are still different), but at least in the middle-class mainstream. This might be another motivational factor that explains younger voters being more knowledgeable. [Asides, one might argue that 'knowing more' than your parents is an intelligent way to transform the generational conflict into a new, more civilized quality].

Moreover, 'baby boomers' have such a demographic power that the following generation has hardly a chance to influence the cultural and political mainstream, and is almost inevitably forced into a sub-culture. This is probably holding even more true in Germany than in the USA. Due to low birth rates during and directly after WW II, the German baby-boomers (my generation - born 1959-1968, a few years later than the American ones) make up for almost one quarter of the total German population, and are clearly determining the cultural-political mainstream. With the baby-boomers ageing, and the next generation being sub-cultural or apathetic due to crowding-out, there is suddenly a new 'window of opportunities' opening up for the following generation. I am seeing it here in Germany with young colleagues that have been born in the early 1980s, and I could imagine a similar pattern in the USA. You might call it another facet of the 'opportunity' part of the equation.

So, I think, you are right. Ultimately it is about "displeasure with the direction of the country [which] also motivates those who are going to inherit it". The neccessary (and implicit) pre-conditions are that those who are going to inherit it are assuming responsibility for their inheritance, and see an opportunity to influence the course of action.

Prematurely Grey said...

Looks like everyone discovered the secret to a good thread while I was at Netroots Nation: Continue to discuss something you're interested in older post. Interesting.

信次 said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

平平 said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

酒店上班請找艾葳 said...

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作兼差打工假日兼職兼職工作酒店兼差兼差打工兼差日領工作晚上兼差工作酒店工作酒店上班酒店打工兼職兼差兼差工作酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領假日兼職兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚,無業績壓力,無脫秀無喝酒壓力,高層次會員制客源,工作輕鬆,可日領現領
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已,對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有!艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪,不需擔心!只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,