NV-CNN/ORC: D: Clinton 48% Sanders 47%; R: Trump 45% Rubio 19% Cruz 17%

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Thank God, at least it's a proper poll.

NV looks like a Trumpslide for the GOP and a tight Dem race. Of course forgetting that polling NV is a pointless exercise, so who knows.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Those sub-samples for the Dem race are downright whacky. I'm not saying they're wrong, but this would be completely counter to what we're expecting.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The fact that we now have two polls showing a statistical tie should at least unnerve our resident Hillbots a little bit.

Considering the cross-tabs make absolutely no sense, even allowing for high MoEs etc. This was always going to be tight. Looking more at it... the numbers are just garbage. There's so many elements with N/A next to it.

I'm nervous about NV, but not based on two pretty questionable polls.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nevada "was always going to be tight"? That's news to me. First you guys were saying Bernie would be lucky to win any State, then he was going to win NH but immediately get clobbered everywhere else... I'm glad you now accept that Nevada is in play.

Don't be smug, you're not unpleasant.

I meant it as in, Nevada was always going to be tight post-Iowa and NH.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering the cross tabs, Nevada is not really in play. If Clinton is tied with whites and leading with non-whites, this should be a fairly clear win. Something is wonky with the topline.

Or maybe the cross tabs are wonky.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With that number of respondents, it's the cross-tabs.

I think if the cross-tabs are wonky to that degree, then it's probably influencing the topline figures too.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering the cross tabs, Nevada is not really in play. If Clinton is tied with whites and leading with non-whites, this should be a fairly clear win. Something is wonky with the topline.

Or maybe the cross tabs are wonky.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With that number of respondents, it's the cross-tabs.

I think if the cross-tabs are wonky to that degree, then it's probably influencing the topline figures too.

It's not that the cross tabs are influencing the toplines, but rather both the cross tabs and toplines suffer from the low number of respondents increasing the margins of error.

It's also that there seems to be massive holes in the data.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering the cross tabs, Nevada is not really in play. If Clinton is tied with whites and leading with non-whites, this should be a fairly clear win. Something is wonky with the topline.

Or maybe the cross tabs are wonky.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With that number of respondents, it's the cross-tabs.

I think if the cross-tabs are wonky to that degree, then it's probably influencing the topline figures too.

It's not that the cross tabs are influencing the toplines, but rather both the cross tabs and toplines suffer from the low number of respondents increasing the margins of error.

Dude, if Clinton ties Sanders among whites and has a lead among non-whites then how the hell is she ahead by only 1 point?
It's simple mathematics.

I know that...as I just said both the toplines and the cross tabs suffer. The error listed for the toplines was +/-6.0 and the error for the white crosstabs was +-8.0, with nonwhite crosstabs likely having a much higher error as well. I'm saying this whole poll is junky.

We agree on this fundamental point.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nevada "was always going to be tight"? That's news to me. First you guys were saying Bernie would be lucky to win any State, then he was going to win NH but immediately get clobbered everywhere else... I'm glad you now accept that Nevada is in play.

Don't be smug, you're not unpleasant.

I meant it as in, Nevada was always going to be tight post-Iowa and NH.

I'm not trying to be unpleasant. I would just like to see people stop being hacks for one second. And yes, this also applies to a lot of Bernie folks over here who overhype dubious polls like this one, but it would still be nice to see someone on the Hillary side not constantly rationalizing the fact that she has been repeatedly losing the expectations game for the past six months or so.

I actually predicted that Sanders could fill a vacuum and threaten Hillary back in September because she was focused on small events and Bernie was holding big events and building momentum. While I don't like seeing it and hoped it wouldn't happen, it's not surprising to me.

OBVIOUSLY, Hillary is not doing as well as she otherwise should (based on all factors, not preference), Sanders has done incredibly well and he's connecting to dissatisfaction and bringing issues to the fore. I think part of the issue was that I think Hillary was OVER-VALUED and something like this was going to be a risk regardless of who ran against her, but especially likely if someone ran from the left.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

For some reason, Nate Silver has decided to update his predictions to a 67% chance of a Clinton win and 33% chance of a Sanders win, which is pretty different than the 51% chance for Sanders/49% chance for Clinton prediction that he had earlier.

Didn't he do that based on this poll?

If he did, then I think it's a stupid way to approach things.