November 1, 2004 12:37 PM PST

Young cell phone users behind Kerry

The young cell phone crowd backs Kerry for president, according to a novel poll taken exclusively over mobile phones.

Among 18- to 29-year-old likely voters, 55 percent favored Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 40 percent preferred incumbent George Bush, according to the study, conducted by polling firm Zogby International and nonprofit group Rock the Vote.

The findings may address the concern that traditional polling efforts don't reach young people who strictly use a mobile phone.

"Rock the Vote's mission is to encourage young Americans to be heard in the political process," Jehmu Greene, president of Rock the Vote, said in a statement. "Because this group has been increasingly underrepresented in traditional polls, our mobile-phone poll, conducted with Zogby, takes a first step toward capturing the political attitudes of youth voters--reaching them while they are on the go."

Other polls predict that Tuesday's presidential election will be close, making the new text-messaging poll potentially significant. In the survey of 6,039 likely voters, 1.6 percent chose Independent Ralph Nader, and 4 percent remained undecided. The poll was conducted Oct. 27 through 30 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 1.2 percentage points. Its results were weighted for region, gender and political party.

Against the standard view that young people care little about voting, the poll found that only 2.3 percent of 18- to 29-year-old respondents said they did not plan to vote. Another 0.5 percent were not sure if they would vote.

Participants came from the 120,000 subscribers of Rock the Vote Mobile, a system put in place by Rock the Vote and mobile-phone maker Motorola.

John Zogby, CEO and president of the Utica, N.Y., polling firm, said his company plans to explore future text message surveys in response to concerns throughout the polling industry about reaching mobile-phone users.

He also said the new poll's results jibe with other research.

"Among 18- to 29-year-olds, Kerry leads the president by 14 points--55 percent to 41 percent in our current daily tracking poll--virtually identical to these results," Zogby said in a statement. "Our text message poll seems to have been validated by this experiment. All in all, I think we've broken some new ground in polling."

16 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Poll source?
When you use rock the vote as a source for your poll, your only polling those young people that are going to rock the vote's website. They go there, because they see it on MTV. Most conservative young people don't watch MTV because it's too liberal. No wonder the poll came out so much for Kerry.
Posted by danlemire (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
MTV a credible polling source?
Polling users from Rock the Vote is going to give you skewed
results. People who sign up for Rock The Vote are mostly
people who see it on MTV...a station which many conservative/
republican types don't watch. This is like taking the poll results
from local churches (which would skew the results in the
direction of Bush) and calling it a legit polling source.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
Poll source?
When you use rock the vote as a source for your poll, your only polling those young people that are going to rock the vote's website. They go there, because they see it on MTV. Most conservative young people don't watch MTV because it's too liberal. No wonder the poll came out so much for Kerry.
Posted by danlemire (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
MTV a credible polling source?
Polling users from Rock the Vote is going to give you skewed
results. People who sign up for Rock The Vote are mostly
people who see it on MTV...a station which many conservative/
republican types don't watch. This is like taking the poll results
from local churches (which would skew the results in the
direction of Bush) and calling it a legit polling source.
Posted by (2 comments )
Link Flag
I hope they're right.
I'd honestly rather commit suicide than live through another four
years like the last four. I've spent more than half of the last 45
months looking for a job. I just can't take it anymore.

Bush has been an unmitigated disaster. I can't think of anybody
who's better off now than they were four years ago. Even the rich
people who benefitted from Bush's giveaway of our budget
surplus have had their investments hosed by the collapse of the
economy. I can't understand why anybody would vote for that
moron. Thank God the next generation has more sense than we
do.
Posted by (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Kerry is scary to me
I empathize with anyone out of work. I've had 2 jobs crash and burn during Bush's presidency, and had to take a 20% hit in pay during one of them just to have a job at all. Even so, I know I've been fortunate.

But I don't blame Bush for that. The economy was already going downhill fast during the first 10 months of the Bush presidency before a single proposal of his could make it into law -- meaning the economy was already headed downhill due to Clinton's policies. And what was that policy? Why to raise the tax rate on the "rich", of course! But there is a big difference between those making over $200K who are business owners and those making over $200K who are over-paid executives on a salary.

Raise the taxes on the business owners earning between $200K and $1M (on paper) and they have significantly less money to hire new people with. And those business owners have for years accounted for around 70% of the new jobs in this country.

So get Kerry elected and let him come through on his campaign promise to roll back the upper bracket tax cuts. Then after the economy does its lag by 2 to 3 years, watch the unemployment rate shoot back up past 8%! Scares me...
Posted by (15 comments )
Link Flag
I hope they're right.
I'd honestly rather commit suicide than live through another four
years like the last four. I've spent more than half of the last 45
months looking for a job. I just can't take it anymore.

Bush has been an unmitigated disaster. I can't think of anybody
who's better off now than they were four years ago. Even the rich
people who benefitted from Bush's giveaway of our budget
surplus have had their investments hosed by the collapse of the
economy. I can't understand why anybody would vote for that
moron. Thank God the next generation has more sense than we
do.
Posted by (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Kerry is scary to me
I empathize with anyone out of work. I've had 2 jobs crash and burn during Bush's presidency, and had to take a 20% hit in pay during one of them just to have a job at all. Even so, I know I've been fortunate.

But I don't blame Bush for that. The economy was already going downhill fast during the first 10 months of the Bush presidency before a single proposal of his could make it into law -- meaning the economy was already headed downhill due to Clinton's policies. And what was that policy? Why to raise the tax rate on the "rich", of course! But there is a big difference between those making over $200K who are business owners and those making over $200K who are over-paid executives on a salary.

Raise the taxes on the business owners earning between $200K and $1M (on paper) and they have significantly less money to hire new people with. And those business owners have for years accounted for around 70% of the new jobs in this country.

So get Kerry elected and let him come through on his campaign promise to roll back the upper bracket tax cuts. Then after the economy does its lag by 2 to 3 years, watch the unemployment rate shoot back up past 8%! Scares me...
Posted by (15 comments )
Link Flag
Bush is a lot scarier.
Come on. You don't blame Bush for the economy? The economy
is always better when a Democrat is in the White House. FDR
pulled us out of the great depression and fought the second
world war. Bush can't overcome a minor market correction and a
couple of police actions? And you're forgetting that Clinton
fought wars in Somalia and Bosnia while paying down the debt
and building huge budget surpluses. So don't give me any of
those lame excuses!

Bush squandered the surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich,
underfunded education, slashed all kinds of constructive social
programs, bungled the war efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
and built up a record deficit. Don't you think maybe there's a
connection between his policies and the mess we're in? Get a
clue!

I thought it was pretty interesting to hear Osama bin Laden say
his goal was to bankrupt the US government. I guess we can see
who he hopes will win this election. It looks to me like they're
both working for the same cause!
Posted by (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Prosperity & Presidential Parties
Okay, I can argue that, although I don't think you'll reason with me, only roll in the mud.

I will gladly blame the Republicans for economic problems in the early 60's. Kennedy fixed them by cutting the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70%. Never mind the fact that the top rate was even higher (at 97%) at one point in the 50's. Never mind, no matter how morally bankrupt you consider the wealthy, the total immorality of legally consficating that much of a person's income if they are honest and providing therefore plenty of motivation for the wealthy to be dishonest to avoid punitive taxation.

But I will also blame Lyndon Johnson for the financial woes Nixon inherited due to Johnson's great vote buying scheme called the "Great Society" program, which did not change poverty levels in this country at all, yet flushed trillions down the toilet.

I will also give Ronald Reagan his due for lowering that top income tax bracket eventually to 28%, leading to one of the longest peacetime economic booms. It only got into trouble because the Democrats in congress spent the money faster than revenue levels rose on all their pet projects.

So I do not think the "facts" line up with one party or the other having a better economic record.

You might get the idea I don't like high taxes because I think they drag down the economy. You would be right. I also don't like deficit spending. Unlike the way you appear to be, I am not a partisan hack. I have independently arrived at conclusions about what I think works and what doesn't. Some of those positions the Republican party lines up with, some the Democrats line up with. Kerry's positions in many areas look reasonable, but then in those areas he isn't that far away from Bush. He just strikes me as a rich, arrogant snob who may naively believe that he can do a better job than Bush. He is a better debater, no question. I don't think an arrogant, smart-ass talking rich boy is going to be able to get any cooperation out of the Republican controlled congress, nor out of our so-called "allies" in Europe that knifed us in the back in the U.N.

For the economy's sake, I sure hope his "tax the rich" proposals are all dead on arrival in the congress if he does get elected.
Posted by (15 comments )
Link Flag
Bush is a lot scarier.
Come on. You don't blame Bush for the economy? The economy
is always better when a Democrat is in the White House. FDR
pulled us out of the great depression and fought the second
world war. Bush can't overcome a minor market correction and a
couple of police actions? And you're forgetting that Clinton
fought wars in Somalia and Bosnia while paying down the debt
and building huge budget surpluses. So don't give me any of
those lame excuses!

Bush squandered the surplus on a tax giveaway to the rich,
underfunded education, slashed all kinds of constructive social
programs, bungled the war efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan,
and built up a record deficit. Don't you think maybe there's a
connection between his policies and the mess we're in? Get a
clue!

I thought it was pretty interesting to hear Osama bin Laden say
his goal was to bankrupt the US government. I guess we can see
who he hopes will win this election. It looks to me like they're
both working for the same cause!
Posted by (33 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Prosperity & Presidential Parties
Okay, I can argue that, although I don't think you'll reason with me, only roll in the mud.

I will gladly blame the Republicans for economic problems in the early 60's. Kennedy fixed them by cutting the top marginal tax rate from 90% to 70%. Never mind the fact that the top rate was even higher (at 97%) at one point in the 50's. Never mind, no matter how morally bankrupt you consider the wealthy, the total immorality of legally consficating that much of a person's income if they are honest and providing therefore plenty of motivation for the wealthy to be dishonest to avoid punitive taxation.

But I will also blame Lyndon Johnson for the financial woes Nixon inherited due to Johnson's great vote buying scheme called the "Great Society" program, which did not change poverty levels in this country at all, yet flushed trillions down the toilet.

I will also give Ronald Reagan his due for lowering that top income tax bracket eventually to 28%, leading to one of the longest peacetime economic booms. It only got into trouble because the Democrats in congress spent the money faster than revenue levels rose on all their pet projects.

So I do not think the "facts" line up with one party or the other having a better economic record.

You might get the idea I don't like high taxes because I think they drag down the economy. You would be right. I also don't like deficit spending. Unlike the way you appear to be, I am not a partisan hack. I have independently arrived at conclusions about what I think works and what doesn't. Some of those positions the Republican party lines up with, some the Democrats line up with. Kerry's positions in many areas look reasonable, but then in those areas he isn't that far away from Bush. He just strikes me as a rich, arrogant snob who may naively believe that he can do a better job than Bush. He is a better debater, no question. I don't think an arrogant, smart-ass talking rich boy is going to be able to get any cooperation out of the Republican controlled congress, nor out of our so-called "allies" in Europe that knifed us in the back in the U.N.

For the economy's sake, I sure hope his "tax the rich" proposals are all dead on arrival in the congress if he does get elected.
Posted by (15 comments )
Link Flag
Hope is the only word for next 4 years
America is screwed, hope is the word here. I can only hope that over these next 4 years, Bush puts some of his focus on economic issues like healthcare, jobs, etc. I'm dissappointed in America with the outcome of this election. You would think after thousands losing their jobs particularly in Ohio, that Bush wouldn't win, people are just not seeing the big picture in what is happening in our country. America means more than war, I can only hope Bush tries to fix his economic mistakes he has had over his first term.
Posted by pentium4forever (192 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hope is the only word for next 4 years
America is screwed, hope is the word here. I can only hope that over these next 4 years, Bush puts some of his focus on economic issues like healthcare, jobs, etc. I'm dissappointed in America with the outcome of this election. You would think after thousands losing their jobs particularly in Ohio, that Bush wouldn't win, people are just not seeing the big picture in what is happening in our country. America means more than war, I can only hope Bush tries to fix his economic mistakes he has had over his first term.
Posted by pentium4forever (192 comments )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.