Talk Elections

New Poll: Nevada Senator by Mason-Dixon on 2010-10-28 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2010/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=32320101028009)

Summary: D: 45%, R: 49%, I: 3%, U: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.lvrj.com/hottopics/politics/polls/october_2010_3_polls.html)

This one's over.

Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon and CNN/Time all have it 49-45 now.

I think Reid will lose in the end, but Nevada was the state where Obama under-polled the most compared to his election day results iirc.

Should be interesting to see what PPP has to say on this race and if it goes along with the rest of the polls.

Unfortunately for Reid Sr., he has his son on the ballot and he is gonna get blowned out by Sandoval, so in the end it will affect both Reids.

FWIW, Jon Ralston says that nobody in Nevada believes all those polls that show Sandoval 20-30 points ahead. He says that most internal polling shows it a 10-12 point race.

Regardless, Reid would have better off having Goodman beating Sandoval than having his son on the NV governors race.

Could be right, but Jon Ralston hasn't exactly been pro-Republican lately.

lol Reid isn't getting anything above 45%.

The only thing keeping my hopes up about this race is that Obama severly underpolled in Nevada in 2008.

This is a midterm year. Unless those voter suppression ads really pissed of Latino voters, I wouldn't be expecting any comeback for Reid.

It's amazing how the gap has been constant for the last 7-8 polls.

Not just the gap but the exact percentage of support each candidate is receiving remains constant. Weird.

Guess we know what the victory margin's going to look like.

But I thought polls were the work of the devil, and only the results mattered?

...

::)

I think this one is over. 

Well, uh, that's what you said. Not that I don't think Angle's leading, but try to be a little consistent.

He just doesn't like polls that don't show what he wants them to show. So he is consistent.

Don't worry, Jon Ralston says all the polls are wrong and it's really going to be Reid winning.

Bye, Harry.

I don't know if there is a more relevant topic where to put that information.

http://redrock.co.clark.nv.us/VoterRequests/EVMB/MB10G_PartyDistTurnout.pdf (http://redrock.co.clark.nv.us/VoterRequests/EVMB/MB10G_PartyDistTurnout.pdf)

In Clark County, 47% of absentee ballots cast by Democrats and 38% by Republicans. Similar to county's registration numbers, so apparently no turnout gap there.

Clark County early voting skewed a lot more heavily Democratic in 2008 than the election day vote.  Reid needs to build a huge lead in the Clark County early vote to have any shot at winning.  What's in so far probably isn't good enough.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/30/republicans-lose-ground-second-straight-day-early-/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2010/oct/30/republicans-lose-ground-second-straight-day-early-/)

Republicans lost ground to the Democrats in the urban counties on the largest and last day of early voting Friday, surely giving Democrats hope that a surge to blunt the GOP momentum could carry over into Election Day.

The GOP still maintained a lead relative to registration in urban Nevada, but Democrats kept it to under 4 percent. When the rural data is in, as well as Washoe absentees, the statewide turnout advantage for the GOP is expected to be closer to 3 percent. In 2006, after Election Day, the GOP had a 6 percent turnout advantage, but the Democrats did not have a 5 percent edge in statewide registration, as they do now. And upwards of 65 percent of the overall turnout already has occurred.

The early voting sites are not uniformly sited.  Outlying areas of Clark County only get a limited chance at early voting in their towns - a day or two - which just happened to coincide with days when Republicans lead the Clark early vote tally.   It is not surprising that Republican early voting turnout falls when those sites are yanked.

Site selection matters.  Early voting tends to be biased toward urban areas, which skew Democratic.  Access to the polls is more uniform on election day.

Remember how well M-D did in 2008?

My one fleeting bit of hope is that a combination of Reid's top notch GOTV effort, plus an unusually high NOTA vote that would otherwise go 90+% against the incumbent might give Harry a chance at another .10 % victory like in 98.

Admittedly, the chances of that are still slim. :P

"Senator Angle". Geez Republicans are willing to swallow a lot to return to mid-2008. >:(

The minute Reid uttered his famous line about the war is lost in 2007, the GOP was guarranteed to go after him with no restraint. Reid knew this as early as 2008 and hence his and his machines actions since 2008.

Its about getting back at Reid more then anything.

I like the ring of that.

You're delusional.

Do you think Reid would have escaped a tough race in a different environment? No. He has 35% approval ratings and has since 2007. The only possible way for read to escape would be for Angle to not have a chance in a less Republican environment. Maybe, maybe not. There is nothing "delusional" about what I said, it is opinionated analysis. The GOP was going to take down Reid. Maybe not the NV GOP bought, paid off, bribed, prosecuted by the Reid machine into supporting him. The national GOP and conservative groups were going to take him out, or try their best. I don't like Angle, I didn't support her in the primary. The only reason I am willing to support her is to get rid of Reid. The only reason Angle has a even a chance in hell is because they are sick and tired of Reid.

Does anyone here honestly, think that Angle would be winning against Goodman, or Berkley or some random Dem state senator? I rest my case

When I see personal opinion based analysis that is rational being labeled as "delusional", I take that as a personal insult and if you insist on continuing that behavior towards me, I will be sure to report every such instance of that. Learn to treat people who have a different opinion with respect, not with arrogant rank personal insults.

Does anyone here think that Angle would be winning against Goodman, or Berkley or some random Dem state senator? I rest my case

Reid has been a mediocre senator and a terrible majority leader, and I'd almost be happy to see him lose if he were running against anybody but Angle. I doubt Angle could win against anybody but Reid, and if Reid were running against anybody but Angle, he would be headed towards a loss of Santorum or Blanche Lincoln proportions.

Saying that Reid will lose because he said that the Iraq War was lost IS delusional. His status as majority leader would make him Republicans top target anyway.
Just look what happened to Tom Daschle, hardly a fire-breathing liberal or an extremely partisan leader.

I don't ever recall saying that he would loose because he said the Iraq war was lost. I said, it guarranteed he would be challenged if that wasn't guarrenteed already (whoops, left the if part out). I still didn't say it was the only factor leading to him being "challenged" like the devil.

Why most you 1) seek desperately to misinterpret a situation or read it as you want it to mean so that you can 2) insult someone.

Stop being so bitter and arrogant and loosen up.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. ;D

Das right folks.

So, yeah.

Like I said in the other thread, second cycle in a row that the pollsters have failed in Nevada.

Whoops.

Interestingly, Suffolk always has one of the best results. In 2008 and this year.

And Jon Ralston is again vindicated.

Would Reid have won without the "power outage"?

lol conspiracy theory

The mark was missed on this one, very much. I thought that Reid would squeeze out a very narrow victory, with the help of None of These. Him getting to 50% was quite surprising.

This was certainly interesting to see and I would equate it to three things.

1. Nevada has a history of being difficult to poll accurately.


2. There were a lot of people that despised Reid, but just couldn't vote for Angle or had a difficult time voting for Angle and so they split between third party, NOTA, Angle and Reid. And due to number one, it was hard to see for sure this was occuring to extent that it was.

3. It all comes down to bringing your a-game to the ground game. You can't win without getting your people out and conversally you can win even when everyone says its impossible by getting your people out.

The GOP had to run an outsider, and they had to rely on outside and grassroots money. Because the insider NV GOP had been bought, prosecuted, scared, defeated or otherwise prevent from being able to challenge Reid thus depriving the establishment of a top tier candidate, which Lowden wasn't. They had to rely on the outside and grassroots money because the gaming and mining interests are all in Reid's corner.

That doesn't mean that Angle was the best "outsider" candidate. I think that Tarkanian had the best potential had he been able to position himself to get Tea Party support or atlest prevent Angle from becoming "the" tea party candidate, he could have been the one to benefit from Lowden's collapse and pull off a win. He did win the early vote in Clark in the NV primary so he did have some organization and influence due to name recognition in that country which would have been a boon, could he have built on it, in the general against Reid. However, Tark wasn't a Johnson or a Rubio and so he went no where in the primary. 

NOTA actually got an abnormally low percent of the vote this time, FWIW.

Even if it didn't, NOTA wouldn't have mattered in the election because Reid got an absolute majority of the vote.

Not news: Every pollster sucks at polling Nevada, and for whatever reason Democrats there consistently underpoll. (Anyone have a good explanation as to why? Maybe underestimating Hispanic turnout?)

Ironically, this election was Harry Reid's widest victory margin ever.

He romped in 2004.

1986: Reid by 5.5  50%-44.5%
1992: Reid by 11 51%-40%
1998: Reid by .1% 47.9%-47.8%
2004: Reid by 26 61%-35%

Its probably his second or third closest.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if outdated census statistics get used heavily by certain polls? 

Nevada, easily one of the top few fastest growing states of the last decade, could have its electoral reality not reflected in official counts that could be more outdated than any other state's?

The race was too competitive for anyone to waste their vote on that.