I think it’s actually fine, as a long-term strategy, to rely on young people to win national elections. The idea is that people internalize their loyalties to one or another ideology early in life, and so capturing a young voter will have lasting effects throughout their lifespan. But in the short term, the young voter strategy is potentially disastrous for a midterm election without a compelling or charismatic character on the ballot:

1. Less than 24 hours after President Barack Obama announced his plan to re-build the coalition that helped elect him in 2008, new numbers from Gallup suggest one of the pillars of that foundation is decidedly shaky.

Less than one in four voters aged 18-29 described themselves as “very enthusiastic” about the 2010 midterm election. Those numbers compare unfavorably to voters between 50 and 64 (44 percent “very enthusiastic”), 65 and older (41 percent “very enthusiastic”) and 30 to 49 (32 percent “very enthusiastic”).

“The fact that voters under age 50 — and particularly those under 30 — are less enthusiastic about voting this year is not a new phenomenon,” wrote Gallup’s Frank Newport. “Voter turnout typically skews older.”

It’s worth investing to change that dynamic, and the DNC appears to be doing so. But in November, finding young voters, among the most mobile in the electorate, and getting them to the polls expends a lot of energy and resources and the ROI may be small. The typical midterm voter profile cuts against the voter profile that would be successful for a Democrat. This is why the voter model can cause such wide shifts in the electorate.

It’s just going to be very difficult to make up for what amounts to a 30-40% dropoff in young voters. Perhaps events will conspire to change this – I actually think the Arizona immigration law could do so. But again, very difficult.