A well-reported five-point bump in turnout among younger voters helped propel Barack Obama to victory in Iowa, and a look behind the numbers shows just how different this new generation of caucusgoers is from the historically more "reliable" group of over-65 voters.

Last Thursday evening, 22 percent of Democratic caucusgoers were under 30 years old, the same proportion of the electorate made up by those 65 and older, according to the network entrance poll (Democrats, Republicans). (In 2004, the seniors made up 27 percent of all caucusgoers; those aged 17-29, 17 percent; in 2000 those under 30 were just 9 percent of caucusgoers.) And this year, younger voters were worlds apart on ideology, party identification, issues and the election's primary flashpoint: "change."

Politically, Iowa caucusgoers under age 30 were more likely than the senior set to call themselves independents: 26 percent of 17-29 year olds called themselves "independent," more than double the percentage of seniors (12 percent) saying so.

Young caucusgoers are, however, more ideological than their older counterparts. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of 17-29 year-olds described themselves as "liberal" (including 29 percent "very liberal"), while a majority of those 65 and up said they are moderate (55 percent). Thirty-seven percent of seniors called themselves liberal.

Bowers is emphasizing the liberal self-identification of the youth vote to rebut the assertion that Obama attracted independents. That's the wrong way of looking at it. 'A well-reported five-point bump in turnout among younger voters' is chiefly Obama's doing, and '[p]olitically, Iowa caucusgoers under age 30 were more likely than the senior set to call themselves independents.' In other words, Obama turned out independents, but those independents were disproportionately young independents. Bowers attempts to dismiss this by looking to the liberal/conservative bias of the young independent vote.

74% of young caucus goers self-identified as Democrats, and 73% self-identified is liberals. Yeah, that's some post-partisan and post-ideological generation coming through the ranks.

This speaks to the failure of the Republican brand among voters under 30, but it doesn't change for a moment that 26% of them consider themselves independents. Bowers wants Obama's victory to redound to the efforts of liberals and progressives, rather than to some post-partisan appeal to political moderates. That's true to an extent, but only because his definition of 'moderate' is the same as his definition of 'independents'.

They're not the same. To understand the turnout phenomenon, we have to know something different. Why did young independent voters turn out in such large numbers to vote in a partisan Democratic caucus? In part, it is indeed because they have liberal political sentiments. Obama didn't create those liberal sentiments, but he did motivate them to come out and vote. And he didn't do it by appealing to their partisan nature. First of all, they are self-identified independents, so appeals to partisanship will not motivate them. Secondly, Obama didn't make a partisan pitch. Obviously, Obama moved them with the message he had, not the message Bowers' might wish he had had.

The question is not whether or not Obama can win over middle of the road swing voters, but whether he can mobilize massive turnout among non-partisan voters that share his left-leaning sentiments.

Clearly, he can. The good news is that the youth vote is so overwhelming liberal, and that Obama can get them to the polls. Who gets credit? I'd give most of the credit to Bush, Cheney, and people like Tancredo. Most of the rest of the credit has to go to Obama. And, in fairness, I think Clinton and Edwards deserve some credit, too. Having a competitive primary with three attractive candidates running neck and neck in the polls made it much more likely that people would see caucus-going as a worthy expenditure of their time.