Of course, one of the larger differentiators between Millennials and other American generations is technology. Six in ten (61%) Millennials say that their generation is "unique and distinct from other generations" and those that say their generation is distinct cite "technology use" as their greatest differentiator. In this regard, the data support what most Americans observe on a daily basis. Millennials have slightly more positive views of technology than Xers and Boomers (see page 126) and they certainly use technology to stay connected. For example, 88% of Millennials use their mobile phone to text (see page 126), 83% have placed their mobile phone next to their bed before sleeping (see page (see page 135), 75% have a profile on a social networking site (see page 125), 32% have watched a video online in the past 24 hours (see page 127) and 14% are on Twitter (page 125).

But what of Millennial's political and ideological distinctiveness?

Much has already been made of the party identification chart on page 3 of the Pew report, which shows Democratic party identification among registered Millennials dropping from a 62%-30% Democratic advantage in 2008 to a 54%-40% advantage today. While much of the focus of discussion has been this drop, it is fairly clear from the data that Millennials have a greater affinity to a liberal ideology. Jed Lewison makes this point well.

In fact, Republicans rejoicing at the decline of Democratic party identification among Millennials may be missing the forest for the trees. First, the Pew data shows that the recent narrowing of the party identification gap brings things back to roughly where they were in 2004 (53% Dem - 37% Rep in 2004 and 54% Dem - 40% Rep in 2010). For an even deeper dive on this issue, see page 67 of the report where Pew displays yearly (leaned) party identification averages based on ALL of its polling. As Kristen Soltis has pointed out, the GOP certainly has an age gap problem.

And the internals suggest that Millennials are more politically liberal than Xers, Boomers and the Silent Generation. For example:

1. In a forced choice between government doing more or less (see page 116), Millennials lean toward government activism 53%-42%.
2. When asked to describe their political views, Millennials are split 29% conservative to 29% liberal. In comparison to Xers (+13 net conservative), Boomers (+27 net conservative) and 65+ (+38 net conservative), Millennials appear to be much more politically liberal (see page 140). In fact, this data shows that while 29% of Millennials classify themselves as politically liberal, this classification declines to 25% among Xers, 17% among Boomers and 12% among those 65+.

These attitudes could certainly change over time based on economic and social events. We don't yet know how the "Great Recession", the likely collapse and reinvention of American entitlement programs, and the Obama Presidency will shape the attitudes of Millennials over the long term. But GOP rejoicing does not seem in order.

The data is the data. It is certainly compelling. And it suggests that the old 50% incumbent rule may have fit the 1980s and 1990s more than the 2000s. As Mark noted in his post, those that gained their formative public opinion research experience in that era, absorbed the conventional wisdom of that era. I'm a product of that time. But, times change. Mea culpa.

I found Mark's "Four Pollsters on the Incumbent Rule" (December, 2006) to be the most interesting. Here I agree most with Hickman (incumbents are much more aggressive, not worrying as much about building their opponent's name ID) and Greenberg (nationalization and partisan consistency). I also think that microtargeting combined with a renewed focus on turnout machines can have the effect of both saving endangered incumbents and complicating the vote models.

It will be interesting to see how this old rule works in 2010. Like baseball statistics, we always have another wave of data to analyze.

In the case of the Strickland-Kasich race in Ohio, I remain VERY skeptical of the Governor's reelection prospects.

1. First, Strickland's ballot support average in the new year puts him within that perilous under 45% group that Nate's analysis of the 2006-2009 data highlights (67% average loss rate). Even throwing out the hard to believe OH Right to Life survey, Strickland's average ballot support is 42.5%. Moreover, of the last four surveys, Strickland has only led Kasich in one. This data reminds me somewhat of the DeWine reelect in 2006.

2. Second, Strickland's image looks to be in tough shape and approaching a 1-1 fav-unfav ratio.

3. Third, the President's job approval seems to have slipped into negative territory in the Fall of last year.

4. Finally, as I noted in my initial post on the Quinnipiac survey, Kasich is handily defeating Strickland 46%-34% in Central Ohio. This is the part of the state where voters are most likely to remember Kasich. It is also a key battlegound. This does not bode well for Strickland.

I enjoy First Read and very much like Chuck Todd, but I will admit that I threw down my Blackberry in complete frustration after reading the following:

*** Buckeye State Watch: Is the worm beginning to turn for Democrats in Ohio, too? Yes and no. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) now has a five-point lead over challenger John Kasich (R), 44%-39%. Back in November, the race was deadlocked, 40%-40%. Still, that Strickland is below 50% hints at his vulnerability in this swing state. Meanwhile, the poll also finds that President Obama has an upside-down approval rating in Ohio, with 44% approving of his job and 52% disapproving, which is essentially unchanged from November.

Most readers of Pollster already know what I'm going to write, but I feel duty-bound to write this.

While the Quinnipiac poll may show Strickland ahead of Kasich 44%-39%, that is in NO WAY the headline. The headline is actually that (a) Strickland is way below 50% and (b) incumbents under 50% in a two way race have a very poor track record in November. Why? Because voters already have had time to get to know the incumbent. The incumbent has had their term to close the sale with a majority of voters. If he/she can't close the deal now with voters, then it is very unlikely that they will when the contrast ads get started.

Further, the November, 2009 data showing the two "deadlocked" is in no way a deadlock. An incumbent at 40% is a clear signal to his political team that they need to start requesting cash up front and immediate payment terms. Years ago we used to refer to these clients as "wire jobs", because we knew they were going to lose and therefore were very keen for them to wire payment before their loss and the inevitable vendor scramble for payment.

Now, First Read does caveat things a little with this:

"Still, that Strickland is below 50% hints at his vulnerability in this swing state."

It doesn't "hint at" Strickland's vulnerabilty, it demonstrates it quite clearly.

As the trend data shows, Strickland hasn't been over 50% since last summer.

Barring some massive exogenous event, the next Governor of Ohio will be John Kasich. Strickland is a Governor in a swing, center-right state polling WAY under 50% with an economy that will not come back before November.

Interesting data nugget:
In the central part of the state (where the voters know Kasich) Strickland is getting crushed by Kasich 46%-34%. Ouch.

I've worked both sides of the challenger-incumbent chasm. When you're running the incumbent side campaign in this situation, this is your thought process:

1. Double down on the opposition research investment. Maybe something will turn up.
2. Find a way for (or hope for a way) a 3rd party to do most of the really tough contrast ads. I'm sure Strickland's team has this covered already and this will give them some plausible deniability when the negative campaigner stories proliferate ("Hey, they're not our negative ads and we've asked them to stop.") Standard practice.
3. How do I make this a respectable performance?
4. (If internal:) Begin circulating resume.
5. (If vendor:) Get upfront payment terms. Try not to waste too many flights. Minimize focus group swings.

Returning to the general problem for a moment, this misreporting is a constant source of frustration for those in political polling. I'm sure I wasn't the only one that didn't at least roll their eyes this morning upon reading it. Unfortunately, this is a symptom of a constant problem in reporting polling data relative to an incumbent. In a two way race, political professionals don't even bother to look at the spread between the incumbent and the challenger, they only focus on the incumbent's support relative to 50%. Incumbents tend to get trace elements of the undecideds at the end of a campaign. Sure, there is the occasional exception, but this rule is fairly ironclad in my experience.

StrategyOne explored this issue further by using its proprietary Beltway Barometer survey to track elite Washington opinions on the subject.

The data we collected over two years and across three survey waves paints a picture of Washington's elite attempting to contextualize the financial crisis and global recession.

With one in four elite Washington Democrats and Republicans believing that the financial crisis "marked the end of American international dominance," American citizens and global policy elites should pause and consider the implications.

As the table below details, StrategyOne leveraged its Beltway Barometer survey of Washington elites to gauge policy influencer sentiment on this question on three occasions:

• September, 2008
• July, 2009
• January, 2010

We asked.

Some people believe that the financial crisis of 2008 marked the end of American international dominance. Do you agree or disagree?

The results (% agree below) were surprising (full xtabs here.)

Sep., 2008_____________39% (Democrats Agree) /// 15% (Republicans Agree)
July, 2009_____________ 25% (Democrats Agree) /// 20% (Republicans Agree)
Jan., 2010_____________24% (Democrats Agree) /// 28% (Republicans Agree)

As you can see, at the present time one in four DC elites truly think that historians will look back on the financial crisis as marking the end of US hegemony on the world stage. They would likely point to massive deficits, sluggish growth and deterioration of the US dollar as a global reserve currency.

It is interesting to note that one in four Washington elites, those with the most to gain or lose from America's position on the world stage and those with the greatest firsthand knowledge of the situation, believe that America's influence is in decline.

Depending on one's viewpoint, this data can be startling, but for two very different reasons.

Those who acknowledge America's present difficulties, but see the country's strengths in an optimistic light are likely to be surprised that so many of the nation's capital elite view America's influence as in decline. They may view the opinion of this group as unpatriotic. They may also point out that the United States has had many bouts of doom and gloom in its history, including post-Sputnik fears of losing its science and technology lead and 1980s era concerns about Japanese competition. But, natural geographic advantages (a nation that can feed itself, good relations with its neighbors, large oceans to its east and west), a strong military, a large domestic economy, the rule of law and business innovation seem to give America significant staying power.

Those who focus on a surging Pacific Rim and an America deeply in debt, with an aging workforce and a devaluing currency are likely to be surprised that so few Washington elites see the writing on the wall. Like Martin Jacques, author of "When China Rules the World", this group views the rise of a multi-polar world as an inevitable product of economies like Brazil, China, India and others "catching up." They might ask how Washington elites are blind to this inevitable change.

And, as one might expect inside Washington, there are differences of opinion based upon party affiliation.

The Democratic Perspective:
Elite DC Democrats are modulating their thinking over time on this question. In the heat of the meltdown in 2008, with Bush as President, 39% agreed that the financial crisis marked the end of US international dominance. Now that number is 24%. The intervening variables are likely (a) the election of Barack Obama and (b) a perception that the worst economically is behind them.

The Republican Perspective:
On the other side of the aisle, elite Washington Republicans are now 13 points more likely to say that the financial crisis marked the end of US dominance. This is in line with their more pessimistic assessment of the US economy generally. It also may reflect a sour mood with President Obama now in the White House.

No matter the perspective, this is certainly one of the great questions of the age and StrategyOne will continue to track elite Washington sentiment on this question.

StrategyOne's Beltway Barometer survey asked Washington elites if they thought the economy:

1. Has already bottomed out and is getting better
2. Is at bottom and not getting any better or worse
3. Has not yet bottomed out and will still get worse

The results are fascinating and diverge strongly based on partisan affiliation.

For a review of the crosstabs, click here.

Democratic elites in Washington are generally optimistic about the trajectory of the US economy, with 64% saying that the economy has bottomed out and is getting better. Only 19% of Democrats feel that we're stuck at the bottom, and only 15% think the worst is yet to come.

Republican elites in Washington are much less optimistic. One third (33%) think that the economy hasn't bottomed out yet and will get worse. Another 25% think the economy has bottomed out and is not getting any better. 41% think the economy has bottomed out and is on the upswing.

This data takes on even greater import with new jobless claims taking an unexpected rise.