NV Poll: Clinton Up 9, Romney Up 15

(Bumped: TL)

The Nevada polls are all over the place and we should probably ignore them . . . which is why I am posting the LV Review-Journal poll conducted by Mason Dixon:

On Friday the Review-Journal will publish the results of our statewide pre-caucus presidential preference poll conducted Monday through Wednesday by Mason-Dixon Polling & research.

On the GOP side former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney leads his closest opponent by 15 points.

On the Democratic side Hillary Clinton outdistances Barack Obama by 9 points.

Update [2008-1-18 8:58:4 by Big Tent Democrat]: Here are more details:
"Clinton's base is women and voters over 50, and she does well with Hispanic voters," said pollster Brad Coker, Mason-Dixon managing partner. "Those have been the national patterns, and Nevada, I think, is more reflective of the nation as a whole than either Iowa or New Hampshire." Obama dominates among black voters, favored by 65 percent to Clinton's 18 percent, but they make up just 10 percent of likely caucus-goers. Hispanics make up 15 percent of likely caucus-goers and favor Clinton over Obama by 50 percent to 29 percent. Obama, who has gotten a major boost from the Culinary union, also leads among union households, but by only 7 percentage points over Clinton. Edwards, despite his focus on the labor vote, is in third place in this and almost every other group.
The other thing to note is Mason Dixon has been polling in Nevada for many years with a very good track record. It appears this poll may carry more weight than the others.

< Does Justice Only Mean Death? | Obama's Straight Talk Express Takes A Detour >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Maybe? (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    I can't take Nevada polling seriously.  They have no idea who will show up.

    According to Ambinder Obama is lowering expectations for Nevada, but that may be to give himself some breathing room not because he thinks he's going to lose for sure.  

    Clinton has been hitting Obama and Edwards on Yucca Mountain.  Edwards on his votes in the Senate and Obama on his financial ties to the nuclear power industry.  I know Nevadans hate Yucca, but I've yet to be convinced it moves many votes.

    Hill will not be out-pandered? (none / 0) (#6)
    by wumhenry on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    [In Nevada] Clinton has been hitting Obama and Edwards on Yucca Mountain.

    Raises an interesting question: which candidates are most inclined to pander to local special interests in early-primary states?  Did Hillary try to outdo her rivals with happy talk about ethanol subsidies in the run-up to the Iowa primary, for instance?

    Nope (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:27:07 PM EST
    It was a pandering tie.

    Everybody Do the Yucca Pander (none / 0) (#9)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:59:17 PM EST
    Obama held a conference call to say that he opposes Yucca mountain every bit as strongly as Clinton does (although his campaign apparently does not dispute the financial ties cited in the ad).

    Edwards, of course, already said the "science" changed his mind and he regrets his two votes for Yucca mountain.

    It's Panderfest 2008!


    Whoops (none / 0) (#10)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    Somehow erased first line of post which agreed it was a pandering tie.

    A Romney Win Would Be Good (none / 0) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    Running against Mr. Plastic might not be all that bad.

    Definitely don't have a favorite between Clinton and Obama. So I'm not sure how I'll feel if either one wins.  

    GO MITTENS! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 04:39:51 PM EST
    Nevada is Clinton country (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    This is the same deal as NH.  Clinton locked up the local Democratic machine months ago.  Those are the people who know how to get people out to vote.

    She got her people out in NH, and she will get them out in NV.


    Clinton 41%
    Obama 33%
    Edwards 26%

    Finally learned to play the expectations game (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST

    No, just not betting against the house. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:33:45 PM EST
    Obama had stronger institutional support in Iowa than Clinton did and was on the ground much earlier.

    Clinton locked up all of the major NV players early.  I dont' care how many organizers you have in the state, nothing works as well as people with organic ties to the community.

    That's how she won NH, and that's how she'll win NV.


    Ok (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    Me, I have no freaking clue.

    Didn't this poll already come out? (none / 0) (#12)
    by OrangeFur on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:39:04 AM EST
    I feel like I heard the numbers +9 and +15 earlier today.

    Who the heck knows what will happen in Nevada? I understand something like 9,000 people turned out in 2004. At least in Iowa people had prior experience with the crazy rules.

    This was posted this afternoon (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:50:55 AM EST
    out of curiousity, (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:52:27 AM EST
    has anyone ever won elective office by not pandering to the electorate? have they said, "gonna tax ya more, gonna educate your kids less, gonna let your transportation system rot.", and gotten elected?

    i'll go out on a limb, and guess the answer is no. actually, if one did say that, it would probably be the closest thing we've ever had to an totally aboveboard politician. and, after we recovered from the shock, we'd vote for someone else.

    i'd like one to pander to me, and make barbless fishing hooks mandatory. they're a heck of a lot easier to get out of both fish, and small children!

    Looks like a meltdown (none / 0) (#14)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:33:42 AM EST
    over the anti-Hillary union ad.  No matter who wins in Nevada there will be major rips in the political fabric from the looks of it.  Ugly and depressing...we could lose this election and much more if wiser heads don't prevail.

    Why vote? (none / 0) (#15)
    by eddeevy on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:47:21 AM EST
    If I'm a single mother working as a maid in a mega-casino/hotel why should I give up a few hours of my time to help some politician? What are any of these candidates saying that speaks to the challenges I confront every day?
    The turnout of Culinary workers may not be as large as predicted.

    On the ground (none / 0) (#16)
    by koshembos on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:56:53 AM EST
    From sources in Vegas, it turns out that the ground war there is brutal and is unbecoming national candidates. None of this gets to the blogs or the MSM. It seems to me that similar skirmishes took and take place in other states. In the real war out there and its infamous fog, polling is almost meaningless since the fluidity is enormous.

    eddeevy above reflects real feelings, but the the CWU has done a lot for her and she knows it too well. Furthermore, the union has a very strong and highly sophisticated machine to get its members to vote, so I will not be surprised if voting percentages in Vegas and Reno will be high.

    Obama needs a win or a close loss... (none / 0) (#18)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:18:02 AM EST
    ...going into South Carolina, where of course he needs a big win, both to gain momentum, and to knock Edwards out of the race.  
    If Edwards can't finish strongly in both states, it's hard to see the rationale for staying in just to play kingmaker.  If that's what he wants to do, he can do that by endorsing one or the other before Super Tuesday.  I just don't see his 15-25 percent level staying there all through 50 state caucuses and primaries, if he's rarely or never winning, because generally people want to vote for someone they think will have a good chance to win the nomination.  Unfortunately I think a lot of those supporters(the ones who happen to be blue collar white males) may wind up going to Clinton.  But even as an unabashed Obama supporter, I don't find that to be sufficient reason to support Edwards' staying in the race past the point of plausible viability, which in my opinion is the direction his campaign is headed.
    On a side note, I find it interesting that Feingold's withering critique of Edwards(basically questioning his sincerity) hasn't been mentioned here.  For all the talk about Obama's "phoniness", I can't believe the kid gloves that Edwards has been handled with on this count.  You've got his record in the Senate, you've got the Bob Shrum comments about his conduct during the 2004 campaign, you've got Kerry coming out for Obama instead. When do we see a hit piece here on Edwards?  It's not like Obama hasn't been hammered here.  

    He needs to keep it within 10 points or so. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:38:21 AM EST
    A blowout would really hurt.

    From everything I'm reading and hearing from folks I know, a win in NV doesn't seem plausible.


    Edwards support moving to (none / 0) (#29)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:48:25 PM EST

    I'd been thinking it would go more to Obama, but apparently race trumps ideas, policies, political philosophy, and everything else when you get right down to it in America.


    Race? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM EST
    I'm not sure it's race or only race.  Obama, does very well among some classes of white voters.  But he struggles with low income, working class, partisan Democrats, and older voters.  These voter demos tend to go Clinton's way. To the extent it is these demos that she's splitting with Edwards, then I think she would pick up more Edwards' voters than Obama, although certainly not all of them.

    I've read people who have suggested that race is what is driving these demos and that may be right, but I think it's just as plausible to think that unlike young voters or well-educated yuppies, these voting groups are the least likely to be inspired by Obama's talk about building a movement or changing Washington.  I suspect the older voters have heard it all before, the partisan Dems want nothing to do with uniting with Republicans, and the low income and working class voters care more about getting universal pre-K than changing the culture of D.C. (and I know Obama probably supports universal pre-K, but for awhile he had stopped talking about such things in favor of more "movement" language).


    BDB - this rings true (none / 0) (#31)
    by Judith on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM EST
    to me.

    That's certainly more nuanced (none / 0) (#32)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    Perhaps a better way to have put it is people are voting identity over ideology.

    Are polls accurate after New Hampshire? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    In Manchester's Fifth District the Diebolds gave the top Democrats each about ten percent extra votes, but this strange anomaly did not show up on the Republican side, or among the lesser candidates on the Demo side. Just saying.

    The recount goes on.

    Unless the human vote counters are named (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    Diebold, I think you have your faqcts wrong.

    The errors were due to WRITEIN ballots not counted by the machines.


    A win (none / 0) (#22)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:35:16 AM EST
    a win should be a win for the democratic party and Obama doesn't represent the core values of it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is why the ole line democrats are supporting either Edwards or Hillary....Obama is wayyyyy to far to the right on most issues.....

    can you make this distinction... (none / 0) (#23)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 11:40:57 AM EST
    ...by comparing their voting records?

    Just curious.


    No (none / 0) (#24)
    by athyrio on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:23:18 PM EST
    I make this distinction by listening to the candidates and watching what they are espousing. For example Obama's remarks about Reagan were very telling as no self respecting true democrat would ever say that...and his health plan is far from all inclusive....Edwards and Hillarys are far better....and his trade policies etc etc etc...the list goes on and on....I am an old style democrat that got out as a youth and demonstrated for equal rights and for human rights and against Viewnam....Obama's beliefs offend me....

    so the gist is... (none / 0) (#26)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:25:49 PM EST
    Obama's near-universal health care proposal is pandering to the right?  There's not a lot of daylight between these three candidates on the major policy issues, and it's disingenuous for anyone to claim otherwise.  
    Do you really want previous laudatory comments of Bill Clinton and John Edwards vis a vis Reagan to be trotted out?  
    It's in the nature of "silly season" to transform all molehills into mountains, but this is transcending ridiculousness into pure triviality.

    Hillary Hits Obama on Reagan (none / 0) (#25)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:56:29 PM EST
    I wonder how these will play:

    Barney Frank and other Clinton supporters hit Obama on his Reagan comments.

    Hillary personally hits Obama:

    I have to say, you know, my leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years. That's not the way I remember the last ten to fifteen years.

    I don't think it's a better idea to privatize Social Security. I don't think it's a better idea to try to eliminate the minimum wage. I don't think it's a better idea to undercut health benefits and to give drug companies the right to make billions of dollars by providing prescription drugs to Medicare recipients. I don't think it's a better idea to shut down the government, to drive us into debt.

    They can get away with ignoring nuance and context (none / 0) (#27)
    by mike in dc on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    ...but why do presumably well-educated and well-informed bloggers get a pass on this kind of "gotcha" game?

    He clearly did not mean what she is inferring.  


    what did he mean? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    But I laugh at this attack on bloggers by you.

    Any words for the willful misunderstanding of Hillary's MLK remarks?