I tend to agree with Lentz, et. al. (if someone wants to do an edited volume proposal on this, I'll help)perhaps the place to start with critique of this sort of thing is to demand the codebook if it is not publicly available to researchers, it should be provided upon request, then we can see the actual questions and coding, and build the critiques with that in mind. While tracking surveys overall do have issues, I find the real problem between the lack of parity between the claims as presented to the public and the claims that are possible given a narrowest or widest interpretation of the information presented that could be derived from the data. jeremy hunsinger on the ibook www.cddc.vt.edu www.cddc.vt.edu/jeremy www.dromocracy.com