Am I mistaken? (re: registered vs likely voters)

[W_HAMILTON]

I could have sworn that, a few years ago, when young voters were swinging pre-election polls in favor of the Democrats, the media were using registered voters for their polls because, in their view, voters that had registered and voted in the past were more likely to actually vote than "likely" voters.

Now, all I hear is likely voters this and likely voters that. It might not mean much, except that it seems as though many polls that use registered voters as the measurement show Democrats ahead; Olbermann just confirmed this trend again on his show tonight.

Am I mistaken here?

[beyurslf]

1. Many corfe constituencies in the dem base are less likely to viote,

especially in an off-year. Young voters are a good example.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kick-ass-bob]

4. Since I've never been polled...

how do most pollsters determine 'likely' voter status? Do they ask questions of the person or simply look at past voting activity?

[littlewolf]

5. I have never been polled either but my cousins have

they ask you questions
1. where is your polling place
2. have you voted b4.
3. On a scale of 1-5 5 being highest ...
are you looking forward to voting

and things like that ....

[KharmaTrain]

3. Likely Voter Has Been The Standard For A While

At least that's what the corporate media likes to use as horse race numbers with mixed results. In theory a registered voter doesn't mean they will vote as compared to a "likely"...thus your "enthusiasm gap".

I'm holding my powder to see if the polling was right or wrong...or if polls drive voters vs. the other way around. There are so many variables and changes going on that it appears pollsters are missing. We'll see if that shows up tomorrow night.