NV-Monmouth: Clinton +4

[Ljube]

I expect Nevada to be competitive this time. I expect that Hillary won't win so many Dems as this poll seems to indicate.

[Ljube]

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/monmouth-university-24854

Clinton 45
Trump 41
Johnson 5
Undecided 4
None 4

Clinton leads among women 53 percent to 38 percent, while among men, Trump leads 44 percent to 37 percent.

That's a very small lead among men. Trump has a lot of room to improve there.

[Ljube]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-07-11/clinton-holds-small-lead-over-trump-in-nevada-monmouth-poll

White voters prefer Trump by 49% to 37%, while Hispanic, black and Asian voters choose Clinton by 64% to 23%.

Similar white margin to 2012 (Obama 43% Romney 56%).

Poor result among whites. Trump needs to improve there a great deal. More proof it's the Anti-Trump people he still can't unite.

[Ljube]

In the last 3 cycles pollsters have got Nevada wrong more than any other state, averaging 4-6 points over-estimating the Rs.

You realize that Republican candidates in Nevada in 2014 outperformed the polls by a lot, right?

obviously i was talking about presidential cycles. Everyone knows turnout for presidential cycles is completely different. Certainly pollsters should model midterms differently than presidential years. So it is a moot point.

There is no reason to suspect there is some kind if systemic bias among pollsters polling Nevada, particularly because 2014 proved otherwise. Until there is more proof, there is no reason to start unskewing Nevada polls.

[Ljube]

In the last 3 cycles pollsters have got Nevada wrong more than any other state, averaging 4-6 points over-estimating the Rs.

You realize that Republican candidates in Nevada in 2014 outperformed the polls by a lot, right?

obviously i was talking about presidential cycles. Everyone knows turnout for presidential cycles is completely different. Certainly pollsters should model midterms differently than presidential years. So it is a moot point.

There is no reason to suspect there is some kind if systemic bias among pollsters polling Nevada, particularly because 2014 proved otherwise. Until there is more proof, there is no reason to start unskewing Nevada polls.

There wasn't a competitive statewide race in Nevada in 2014, and in any case pollsters underestimated Republican support nationwide.  It's notable that in a year where this was happening, Hickenlooper slightly outperformed his polling average and Mark Udall matched it.

The 2008/2010/2012 elections have given us enough data points telling us that there is some issue (likely problems polling Latinos) that causes pollsters to underestimate the Democratic vote in Nevada/Colorado in competitive statewide races.

I guess we'll see if the pollsters can prove us wrong, but for now I think it's fair to presume that Dem support in CO/NV is being at least somewhat understated by the polls.

I mean, John, it's logical to assume that the pollsters have learned from their past mistakes, particularly because polling is what they do for living.

Therefore, unskewing the polls could prove unwise.

[Ljube]

Nevada could easily end up more D than Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin.  

First of all, Pennsylvania does not belong to that group.
And second, no it won't, at least not more D than Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, or Wisconsin.