Talk Elections

Uh-oh. Well at least it will lower expectations...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2008/jan/17/rj-says-romney-clinton-leading/

Ugh...what a mix of emotions.  :(

Damn! I expected Romney to win Nevada though.

I guess the poll was done by Mason-Dixon. It is worth noting that they underestimated Obama big time in their last Iowa poll.

Did she get that big of a bounce off of beating "uncommitted"?

John Edwards 33%, Barack Obama 26%, Hillary Clinton 26%


That was there last poll from Iowa.

Romney will probably win Nevada, but I doubt that Clinton is that far ahead of Obama.

Some very good news for Obama:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1553481720080117

As we've seen in both Iowa and New Hampshire, turnout is basically everything.  After the New Hampshire debacle, I'm very wary of listening to polls.

Blah. I guess we can hope they're as wrong as they were in Iowa and New Hampshire. I will say that Nevada is completely unpredictable, from any poll, this time around; most of the pollsters have acknowledged this and are staying out for fear of looking like fools, given that turnout could range from 9,000 to 100,000, as the article suggests. I can only hope that Obama will win (preferably widely).

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

So we have a rumored poll and already a rumor that the rumor has a flaw in it?  All we need now is a rumor about the rumor about the rumor and we'll be well on our way to complete stupidity. :P

Mason-Dixon conducting an EMAIL poll?

But, everyone knows that this method is extremely accurate, as evidenced by the Literary Digest poll of 1936.

Plaudits for the snark...

Do we actually have the details of this poll? Surely it should have been released by now?

It will be released here:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/special/polls

LOL if true. Let's see.

I'm not going to pay any attention to Nevada polls. It's not like polls so far have been any accurate, and no one really knows how to poll Nevada now, so they'd be even more worthless.

The standings among Democrats:

New York Sen. Clinton, 41 percent; Illinois Sen. Obama, 32 percent; former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 14 percent; Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, 3 percent; and undecided, 10 percent.

Standings among Republicans:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, 34 percent; Arizona Sen. John McCain, 19 percent; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 13 percent; former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, 8 percent; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 7 percent; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 6 percent; Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, 2 percent; and undecided, 11 percent.

http://www.miamiherald.com/519/story/384084.html

GO MITT!! :P.

Is this a relabile source? Surely Clinton cannot be that far ahead of Obama. This better be a dream. And I better wake up with Obama leading in NV. Because if I don't, it will be like that time I went back in time and found a mysterious planet, with a forbidden zone. This is it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmw6Jne0tAQ).

One person's nightmare Connor.

Whilst your best dream Jack ;). Not that I particularly care about Nevada....

BTW: It's one N in Conor.

1. Where did you hear the rumour?

2. Is there actually any, you know, evidence, to back the rumour up?

I THINK this is a misunderstanding based on a badly written sentence in the original article. I think the article says that the result of a Mason-Dixon poll was e-mailed out to the newspaper's subscribers in advance, but that people are misinterpreting this as saying that the poll was conducted via e-mail to subscribers.

That's probably what's happend, but I'm curious as to who started trashing the poll in the first place.

Any poll where Clinton is leading is trashed.

black voters:

Obama 65
Clinton 19

Hispanic voters:

Clinton 50
Obama 29

blacks are allegedly going to comprise 10% of the electorate and Hispanics, 15%.

Can you tell me why this should be the case? It seems to me that Clinton should be considered the odds-on favorite given the Hispanic breakdown.

That's my thinking, but the glee of the Obama people sends them into bizarre little happy dances everytime they see him ahead - then they question polls when shes leading him.

I'm not going to question it. I'm prepared for a loss Saturday... and if we manage to win by a point somehow, I'll be very happy.

What happened to telling me to be optimistic? :P

Didn't know they had the internet back in 1936.

Thought that Al Gore invented the internet.

Are you telling me that Gore didn't invent the internet?

Even if this poll were accurate, Obama will still win because Edwards will not be viable in many precincts. The caucus rules definitely give Obama an edge. I don't see how Clinton can win in Nevada unless Edwards has a very strong showing at Obama's expense.

Mailed poll (like the Cleveland Dispatch does every year, I think).  Obviously, though, every newspaper subscriber has an address, but I doubt all provide email addresses.  Like every Internet poll, still trends younger and more inaccurate.


Oh, this is a bad Al Gore joke, not an actual point.  Darn.  :P

I wonder, will the Edwards campaign give out any explicit instructions to their people on who to caucus for in precincts where he's not viable?

Awww...my favorites (Barack Obama and Ayatollah Huckabee) are both getting killed in this poll! 

I'm trying to play the expectations game. ;)

I think we'll do ok expectations wise... as to a win, no idea. :(

Hang tight. Stephan Colbert projects an Obama win. He got them all right so far, at least on the democratic side.

Based on what, his "gut"? :P

You forget, Stephen Colbert is America. (and so can you!)

Fixed.

My gut says Nevada is know as the silver state and my gut strongly suggests it enjoys a mostly arid climate.