A new Mason-Dixon poll for the Las Vegas Review Journal finds a dead heat in Nevada. Obama is strong with young voters, with women and with Hispanics. McCain has strength with every other demographic.
« Comments Thread: Tim Russert | Main | "Grandma and the Kids" -- The AP and Bloggers » Nevada Poll: McCain 42, Obama 4416 Jun 2008 09:24 am Comments (18)
You got it backwards-- it's McCain 44, Obama 42. 
I think that the economy is going to flip the state to Obama at the end.
Dear American Voters,
McCain - 44
This looks positive for Obama on first blush. But the undecideds need to be taken into account. For whatever reason, within the last week, a lot of polls (both national and state) have shown McCain losing a few percentage points in polls. But he doesn't lose these voters to Obama, but to undecided. So Obama is leading among women in this poll by a pretty healthy margin, 47 to 39%. But that leaves 14% of undecided women. How many of them will break back to McCain if Obama doesn't offset McCain's courting of women? Same with Hispanics: a huge undecided contingent, about 20% as the article points out. These are huge groups up for grabs. McCain can win by peeling off just over half of these undecideds. Obama can win by peeling off just over half. Looks better for McCain than it appears.
"McCain has strength with every other demographic." Kind of surprising that he's "strong" among African-Americans.
Would have thought it worth mentioning the toxic affect clinton would have on the ticket according to this poll. If that's repeated elsewhere, its pretty damning.
Would have thought it worth mentioning the toxic affect clinton would have on the ticket according to this poll. If that's repeated elsewhere, its pretty damning.
By every other demographic Marc means black Jewish one-eyed entertainers.
The effect of Clinton on the ticket in this one state is moot. The margin of error is so much larger for within-survey samples that that is mostly measurement error. The real takeaway is there is no effect, positive or negative. It's not as interesting of a story though. Further, questions like "If NAME is vice president, would that make you more/less likely to vote for Obama?" are poor survey questions unless many names are asked. It's like they are comparing Hillary Clinton to a generic Democrat. Better questions would you vote for Obama-Clinton against McCain-Jindal, etc. -- where different names are rotated. A lot of those claiming they won't vote for Obama if Clinton is VP are probably hard-core Obama supporters who don't like Clinton after the primary. Of course they will vote for Obama as they are rational and he will head the ticket. Now, if Obama-Clinton is polling poorly with swing demographic groups in Nevada or elsewhere (and not with core Obama supporters) compared to Obama-Webb or Obama-whoever, that is bad for Clinton's vp prospects. This poll of Nevada, though, says nothing good nor bad about Clinton as VP due to both statistical and question wording issues.
Sorry, that's tosh. One state on its own is not valid, but to claim there is no effect and use margin of error when it was 19% against 28% with democrats and 25 against 38% with independents is nonsense. Wrap it up however you want, but thats worthy of mention - whether it repeats elsewhere is another matter.
The other demographics? You mean "old honky men"?
So much for "he can't win Hispanics." And I have a hard time believing McCain is winning blacks or native Americans, so I'll take everyone else to mean a slight lead in old white men? As for veep polls they're pretty pointless--they measure national name recognition.
McCain is leading Obama 44-42, despite this being a 'nomination victory bump' time for Obama. Bumps over it seems. The "undecided" count is huge because there are moderate Democrats and conservative independents puzzling over the dilemma: Obama is a leftist, the most liberal senator in the US Senate, with almost no accomplishments nor experience that would justify his becoming President. McCain is a moderate who may be more appealing to centrist Democrats than a typical Republican, and he's annoyed conservatives enough with his various bipartisan bills that many of them are on the fence. Vote for the RINO 'maverick' to stop the leftist Obama or go 3rd party as a statement against "McAmnesty" McCain? Back in 1988 at this phase in the cycle, Dukakis was up 17 points over GHWBush. Likewise Carter was up huge in 1976 in the summer (30 points?). Obama's campaign is most like Carter's and the dynamic is otherwise a bit like 1988. Yet Obama, despite huge 'generic' ballot favorables for Dems, doesnt have their big leads. Even more troubling is how other polls are so good for Democrats - it is proving that Obama's lack of experience, his extremist pastor and other associates, are weighing on him. He's a weak candidate, quite possibly the weakest candidate the Democrats put forward in decades. This looks like a jump-ball race, but the dynamics of those undecideds are lining up where they will fall on McCain's side once voters sort through who really is a better candidate for them. Unless there is a 10% 3rd party vote, those conservatives will be going heavily for McCain. Those "undecided" conservatives forced to choose between a moderate and leftist will not be giving many votes to Obama, that's for sure. The number of bamboozled Republicans and conservative independents who 'like' Obama but are unaware of his capital gains tax hike, his extremist pro-abortion position, his proposed "UN global tax' or his troubling history of associating with leftist radicals (http://no-bama.blogspot.com) will dwindle. The coup de grace will ironically be Iraq, when people wake up an realize that the troops will not come home any sooner with Obama. McCain's call to bring the troops home with honor not dishonor will resonate. Obama's 'change' 'hope' and "McSame" attacks are shallow and wear thin. All style and no substance can only get you so far. Result: McCain will win huge. Congrats Dems, this was your race to lose and you just may well do that!
"1. Presidential "Temperament and Composer"." "2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" experience." 3. "Vision and mission" for our nation future rather than past." "4. American policies, " first U.S.A Centric" than any other country [ ies ] centric." Another Teddy Roosevelt beats another Jimmy Carter hands down.
2:08--that'd all be more exciting analysis if Nevada didn't normally go red. Running tied there is not a good sign for McCain. Pro-choice isn't extremism, it's mainstream America. Fiscal conservatives know that Bush's tax cuts are a disaster. And on Iraq, the claims for a Korea-like occupation ignore the fact that suicide bombers aren't blowing themselves up in South Korea. (For that matter, states like South Korea and Kuwait have plentiful reason to welcome a US base presence as a deterrent to large hostile neighbors; this isn't true in Iraq.) 2:37 You do realize Teddy Roosevelt left the Republican party because its increasing identification with the needs of big business drove it away from his populist stance? And that was for the 1912 election.
Regarding Deborah saying Nevada usually goes red. This is true, but historically open seat senate and state level races have been exceedingly competitive, with the victor winning by literally only a few thousand votes or less. Also, the population growth in Nevada makes it very difficult to use past voting as a measure and also makes it difficult to poll. In about 10 years, the state has grown by more than 100% in population.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Every other demographic? Doesn't that pretty much just leave middle-aged and older white men?
Posted by Gabriel | June 16, 2008 9:29 AM