NV-TargetPoint Consulting/Washington Free Beacon: Sanders & Clinton tied at 45%

[Fusionmunster]

So a Republican firm conducted a poll of the Democratic caucuses but didn't bother to to do one for the Republican ones?
Seems legit.

In your heart, you know that Hillary is not going to win the nomination right? Can't you just feel it? The coup de grace will be when the polls show Bernie a much stronger candidate against the Pub than Hillary will be. Anyway, add this to my long list of wrong predictions if you like, that you can copy and paste at my expense later.

I feel it, Torie. I agree with you 100%.

I suppose the hard core Clinton supporter in me wants to think she still has a chance if she basically adopts his platform wholesale, and directly addresses the trustworthiness accusations against her, but even then she'd be accused of changing her position, but she'd still have a shot.

Otherwise, this thing could be effectively over sooner than we think.

Your already throwing in the towel?

[Beet]

I never thought she should run in the first place. The political community convinced me to go against my gut and be optimistic on the basis of all the endorsements, polls, analyses showing her invincibility et cetera last year.

[Fusionmunster]

I never thought she should run in the first place. The political community convinced me to go against my gut and be optimistic on the basis of all the endorsements, polls, analyses showing her invincibility et cetera last year.

The democrats can shove it if they drop Hillary again for the flashier model. I wasnt a Puma in 2008 but I sure as hell will be one now. Shes bieng treated like absolute garbage. I didnt want her to run either btw, I dont want her legacy to end on a defeat.

[ElectionsGuy]

Wow. Is it fair to say that the race is a toss-up if Sanders wins this? The whole defense of Clinton's "inevitability" is that she'd have this firewall after Iowa and New Hampshire. If the firewall is coming down, then she's on a sinking ship. Low turnout caucuses are hold to poll and hard to predict, and I still think Clinton will get a narrow victory as of now, but the Hillary hacks have got to be damned.

[DrScholl]

I almost want to see Sanders win the nomination so he can fall flat on his face and maybe retire from the Senate in 2018. But, it's more important to win the White House and keep the court from being pushed far to the right.

[Brittain33]

Wow. Is it fair to say that the race is a toss-up if Sanders wins this?

I think that's fair. Basically it's all down to SC.

[The Other Castro]

Wow. Is it fair to say that the race is a toss-up if Sanders wins this? The whole defense of Clinton's "inevitability" is that she'd have this firewall after Iowa and New Hampshire. If the firewall is coming down, then she's on a sinking ship. Low turnout caucuses are hold to poll and hard to predict, and I still think Clinton will get a narrow victory as of now, but the Hillary hacks have got to be damned.

It would definitely move it to at least Lean Clinton or Tilt Clinton, but maybe not toss-up yet.

[Xing]

Wow. Is it fair to say that the race is a toss-up if Sanders wins this?

I think so, or Tilt Clinton at the most. Sanders' win in New Hampshire could be explained by favorable demographics and its proximity to Vermont. While Nevada is a better state for Sanders than South Carolina, it's not a state that one would expect him to do especially well in. If he ekes out a win, we've got a real horse race on our hands. I'm still skeptical that he's actually even with Clinton here, but I wouldn't be surprised if Nevada ended up being at least somewhat close.

[This account no longer in use.]

Exactly. If Sanders wins Nevada with all its 'blaxicasians', then this race is officially a tossup.

[Eraserhead]

Wow. Is it fair to say that the race is a toss-up if Sanders wins this?

I think that's fair. Basically it's all down to SC.

Sanders isn't going to win SC. If he wins NV, it probably means we'll have a 50 state contest. We may get that even if he loses here.

[Adam Griffin]

Even if Clinton loses NV, she still will win 60/40 in every Southern Primaryc she clinches nomimation if she rolls SC, which she will.

Just a heads-up: if Clinton only wins by 20 points in SC and other Deep South states, then she will lose this primary. She ideally needs to win most of these states by twice that much. If Sanders gets 35% of the vote in SC, then he's live for the long haul and the media will reflect that. If he gets 40%, then that means he's won a clear majority of non-blacks and at least one-third of blacks.

[Adam Griffin]

Furthermore, she needs to win this caucus in NV by double-digits if she doesn't want the sinking narrative to continue. If Bernie loses in NV by 10 points, then that'll mean that he got a majority of whites, a majority of Latinos, an overwhelmingly majority of those under 30 (and a healthy majority of those under 45) and received 30% of the black vote. If Bernie is winning a massive majority of young people, males, whites and Latinos, then that says a lot about where the bulk of the Democratic blocs that we need to win in November are currently resting.

[Figueira]

Wow. Is it fair to say that the race is a toss-up if Sanders wins this?

I'd call it Lean Clinton if Sanders wins Nevada. It depends what the demographic breakdown looks like though.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Despite Clinton having a bounce-back in NH in 2008, she only won NV 51-45 and Obama won more delegates.

I think putting this "she needs to win by double-digits" isn't the actual standard. I think winning and it not being razor-close (ie not an IA redux) will be enough. She just needs to make sure she doesn't appear weak in the Latino vote.

The entrance polls in 2008 are pretty interesting.

In all seriousness, my analysis -

1 - This contains only Registered voters - Bernie is expected to win the majority of new registrations between now & caucus day (Or atleast a large chunk)

2 - Only 16% vote share of 18-29  age voters against 18% voting in Iowa (not very high)

3 - A huge , GIGANTIC 32% of the voters above the age of 65 - Seemed very unusual

4 - 59% of the voters are female - So no1 can blame of a sample benefiting Bernie

The demographic sample is incredibly favorable to Hillary. Noway 1 out of 3 voters will be above the age of 65.

If this poll is true, Bernie is likely leading by atleast 3-4% points

13% in 2008 were under 30
36% were over 65
59% were female

So... yeah.

[MaxQue]

I almost want to see Sanders win the nomination so he can fall flat on his face and maybe retire from the Senate in 2018. But, it's more important to win the White House and keep the court from being pushed far to the right.

Why backing a candidate with multiple scandals and which voters don't trust, then?
(Don't answer me than Sanders is not electable, I'm aware he is not a strong candidate either. Ideally, neither of them should be the candidate.)

[Adam Griffin]

Despite Clinton having a bounce-back in NH in 2008, she only won NV 51-45 and Obama won more delegates.

I think putting this "she needs to win by double-digits" isn't the actual standard. I think winning and it not being razor-close (ie not an IA redux) will be enough. She just needs to make sure she doesn't appear weak in the Latino vote.

She can win by 10 and still lose the Latino vote. The reason is that it's different from 2008 in that Clinton is not "the white people's candidate". If double-digits isn't the standard, then you have to accept the conclusion that she will likely lose every demographic except black voters; a single-digit victory this time will only be possible due to the black vote saving her, unless Sanders overperforms with black voters and underperforms elsewhere (I don't believe this is likely).

If she wins by 6 or so like she did in 2008, then it's highly possible that she's lost the Latino vote by double-digits. I don't know if that quantifies as "appearing weak", but it's pretty weak in the context that everybody expected her to do nearly as well with Latino voters as with black voters six months ago. The notion of separating black and Latino voters - instead of just looking at it as "non-white voters" - wasn't even a thing until recently.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Within the confines of how Clinton would perform in the Democratic primary

[Mehmentum]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Within the confines of how Clinton would perform in the Democratic primary

coughblaxicanscough

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Within the confines of how Clinton would perform in the Democratic primary

coughblaxicanscough

Blaxicasian... 

[/]

By the way, Nate Silver's first forecast for the NV Democratic caucus puts each at an exactly 50% chance of winning.

[Boston Bread]

538 forecasts are pointless with one poll. But at the very it least it seems like they threw out the Clinton skew in their "polls-plus" forecast after they saw how little impact Clinton's endorsements had.

[Brittain33]

Washington Free Beacon's unbiased coverage of the Dem primary:

http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-clintons-top-corporate-donors-are-among-the-most-hated-companies-in-america/

[Figueira]

538 forecasts are pointless with one poll. But at the very it least it seems like they threw out the Clinton skew in their "polls-plus" forecast after they saw how little impact Clinton's endorsements had.

I never understood that anyway. If Clinton's enorsements had a huge effect, wouldn't that be reflected in the polls?

[/]

538 forecasts are pointless with one poll. But at the very it least it seems like they threw out the Clinton skew in their "polls-plus" forecast after they saw how little impact Clinton's endorsements had.

I never understood that anyway. If Clinton's enorsements had a huge effect, wouldn't that be reflected in the polls?

Exactly. The supposed effect of "endorsements" was just another way for 538 to please its fallacy of Clinton's inevitability. Thankfully, they seem to be past that by now.

[Mr. Morden]

538 forecasts are pointless with one poll. But at the very it least it seems like they threw out the Clinton skew in their "polls-plus" forecast after they saw how little impact Clinton's endorsements had.

I never understood that anyway. If Clinton's enorsements had a huge effect, wouldn't that be reflected in the polls?

No.  The idea is that, when they went back to look at what was predictive of election day results in presidential primaries past, yes, polling in the state was of course the most predictive thing.  But "party support" (as measured in this case by endorsements, since that's a quantifiable thing) also had some predictive power, in the sense that if two candidates polled the same a month before election day, the one with more endorsements was more likely to see his/her polling numbers hold up.  As you get closer to election day though, the endorsements become less predictive, while the polling becomes more predictive.