Interesting if not particularly surprising piece about the difficulty of screening “likely” vs. non-voters (see here). I also liked the peek inside campaign polling vs. public polling. The most interesting piece of data was likely that “non-voting” respondents to the likely voter screen still tend to turnout at relatively high rates. Of course, it takes the author the length of the article to get to the concept that people are expressing their dissatisfaction with the “system” or the slate of candidates, rather than whether or not they’ll actually vote.
Which brings up the point of calling these people “liars.” I mean, it’s laying a normative judgement on top of what is a psychological process. When the respondents say “I’m not voting,” they likely really mean it at that moment. Later post-hoc justification, an “epiphany” about a particular candidate, simple social pressure, all these drive them to turnout. I’m not expecting a detailed discussion of political psychology, but it’s a little harsh to call them “liars,” although admittedly it’s decent headline writing and an overall good piece of journalism.