NV-TargetPoint Consulting/Washington Free Beacon: Sanders & Clinton tied at 45%

[Figueira]

538 forecasts are pointless with one poll. But at the very it least it seems like they threw out the Clinton skew in their "polls-plus" forecast after they saw how little impact Clinton's endorsements had.

I never understood that anyway. If Clinton's enorsements had a huge effect, wouldn't that be reflected in the polls?

No.  The idea is that, when they went back to look at what was predictive of election day results in presidential primaries past, yes, polling in the state was of course the most predictive thing.  But "party support" (as measured in this case by endorsements, since that's a quantifiable thing) also had some predictive power, in the sense that if two candidates polled the same a month before election day, the one with more endorsements was more likely to see his/her polling numbers hold up.  As you get closer to election day though, the endorsements become less predictive, while the polling becomes more predictive.

Ah, I see now.

[Shadows]

Moved to Reuters thread!!!

[Shadows]

http://imgur.com/lNTmbVD

The fun part - As per MSNBC, Nevada doubles (2 times - 100% increase) the number of Voter Registrations  compared to 2012.

Should be bad news for the Clinton campaign

[Ebsy]

Please keep the Reuters stuff in the Reuters thread.

[IceSpear]

Skeptical of this poll for a few reasons having nothing to do with the top line numbers:

• Washington Free Bacon is a rightwing advocacy group like Breitbart or Newsmax and has an interest in promoting Sanders; this comes through in the article
• "But undecided caucusgoers and those who might change their mind say recent scandals involving Clinton make them significantly less likely to support her." So the poll primed voters with questions about "Hillary's recent scandals"

Yes, it seems people here are a little excited over a GOP poll with a clear agenda of hurting Hillary. It wouldn't particularly surprise me if it was close, but I'll wait for a legit pollster, if one EVER f**king comes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As long as its not 60/40, NV isnt a huge delegate state, she will be haopy with a split in delegates, onto SC.

[jimrtex]

Nevada will be close for a variety of reasons. I'm curious though, the cross tabs suggest 55% of electorate will be first time caucus goers? Is that accurate? Is Nevada that fluid where almost 3/5th's of the population are new, first time caucus goers?

The whole idea of an early caucus is pretty new to Nevada. 2004 is the first one. People in Nevada don't know their neighbors in the same way that people in more settled places like Iowa do. And many people move to Nevada in hopes of getting rich, or for the excitement. They find that it is not so exciting to be working in a hotel or casino, and move back. So the number of people moving to Nevada is greater than the people who stay. And movers tend to be young - younger people don't participate in politics to the extent that older people do.

In 2000, the Democrats appear to have had around 1000 for a late March caucus. In 2004, 2008, and 2012: 8K, 11K, and 12K. The 2012 number was for 1553 precincts at 118 sites. That averages about 8 per precinct, and 100 per site.

Republicans had 44K in 2008, and 33K in 2012. In 2008, Romney had 50% of the straw vote (there are a lot of Mormons in Nevada, and they do have a strong sense of community. But Romney had withdrawn by the time of the state convention. The state convention recessed because of a dispute between McCain and Paul supporters. Paul supporters tend to do particularly well in caucuses, conventions, because they are organized. At precinct caucuses they will volunteer to go to the county convention, or insist that they get their "fair share" of delegates. Or they will challenge the adoption of permanent rules for the convention. Romney supporters might not have shown up for the state convention. And Paul had more support than McCain at the precinct caucuses (it was Romney 51%, Paul 14%, McCain 13%).

By 2012, the Republicans had switched to a meaningful straw vote at the caucuses.

[Likely Voter]

http://imgur.com/lNTmbVD

The fun part - As per MSNBC, Nevada doubles (2 times - 100% increase) the number of Voter Registrations  compared to 2012.

Should be bad news for the Clinton campaign

It depends on who the new voters are. A lot of people move to Nevada. If most are young whites, then better for Bernie, but a lot of people retire to NV and there are a lot of new Latino voters, and that helps Hillary.   And of course being a caucus, new registrants in general are least likely to vote.   


This high churn rate, large Latino population and low turnout caucus system are why polling is so hard in NV.   I'm a bit skeptical that this GOP firm working for the conservative outlet are the ones to nail it.    Hoperwe will get better regarded polls this week but probably not many (if any).   We may have no clue what's up until they start counting. And of course if it is close, we may never have a trustworthy result because its a caucus and that have only done this a handful of times.   

And that is why the national media sort of ignore NV.

[Eraserhead]

It's sad that it's looking like this is the only non-Overtime poll that we'll get before the caucus.

[The Other Castro]

It's sad that it's looking like this is the only non-Overtime poll that we'll get before the caucus.

Gravis will have a new one as well, though that's not exactly something to cheer for.

[IceSpear]

It's sad that it's looking like this is the only non-Overtime poll that we'll get before the caucus.

Gravis will have a new one as well, though that's not exactly something to cheer for.

RIP polling.

[psychprofessor]

Nevada will be close for a variety of reasons. I'm curious though, the cross tabs suggest 55% of electorate will be first time caucus goers? Is that accurate? Is Nevada that fluid where almost 3/5th's of the population are new, first time caucus goers?

The whole idea of an early caucus is pretty new to Nevada. 2004 is the first one. People in Nevada don't know their neighbors in the same way that people in more settled places like Iowa do. And many people move to Nevada in hopes of getting rich, or for the excitement. They find that it is not so exciting to be working in a hotel or casino, and move back. So the number of people moving to Nevada is greater than the people who stay. And movers tend to be young - younger people don't participate in politics to the extent that older people do.

In 2000, the Democrats appear to have had around 1000 for a late March caucus. In 2004, 2008, and 2012: 8K, 11K, and 12K. The 2012 number was for 1553 precincts at 118 sites. That averages about 8 per precinct, and 100 per site.

Republicans had 44K in 2008, and 33K in 2012. In 2008, Romney had 50% of the straw vote (there are a lot of Mormons in Nevada, and they do have a strong sense of community. But Romney had withdrawn by the time of the state convention. The state convention recessed because of a dispute between McCain and Paul supporters. Paul supporters tend to do particularly well in caucuses, conventions, because they are organized. At precinct caucuses they will volunteer to go to the county convention, or insist that they get their "fair share" of delegates. Or they will challenge the adoption of permanent rules for the convention. Romney supporters might not have shown up for the state convention. And Paul had more support than McCain at the precinct caucuses (it was Romney 51%, Paul 14%, McCain 13%).

By 2012, the Republicans had switched to a meaningful straw vote at the caucuses.

Thanks - this sounds more like it's a battle of ground games then. I remember in 2008, though, after Hillary came back and won NH, she won NV and the media essentially ignored this and publicized South Carolina much more. I wonder if the same thing will happen again - this result gets overlooked for whoever wins and the national media salivate over SC going into Super Tuesday.

[IceSpear]

Nevada will be close for a variety of reasons. I'm curious though, the cross tabs suggest 55% of electorate will be first time caucus goers? Is that accurate? Is Nevada that fluid where almost 3/5th's of the population are new, first time caucus goers?

The whole idea of an early caucus is pretty new to Nevada. 2004 is the first one. People in Nevada don't know their neighbors in the same way that people in more settled places like Iowa do. And many people move to Nevada in hopes of getting rich, or for the excitement. They find that it is not so exciting to be working in a hotel or casino, and move back. So the number of people moving to Nevada is greater than the people who stay. And movers tend to be young - younger people don't participate in politics to the extent that older people do.

In 2000, the Democrats appear to have had around 1000 for a late March caucus. In 2004, 2008, and 2012: 8K, 11K, and 12K. The 2012 number was for 1553 precincts at 118 sites. That averages about 8 per precinct, and 100 per site.

Republicans had 44K in 2008, and 33K in 2012. In 2008, Romney had 50% of the straw vote (there are a lot of Mormons in Nevada, and they do have a strong sense of community. But Romney had withdrawn by the time of the state convention. The state convention recessed because of a dispute between McCain and Paul supporters. Paul supporters tend to do particularly well in caucuses, conventions, because they are organized. At precinct caucuses they will volunteer to go to the county convention, or insist that they get their "fair share" of delegates. Or they will challenge the adoption of permanent rules for the convention. Romney supporters might not have shown up for the state convention. And Paul had more support than McCain at the precinct caucuses (it was Romney 51%, Paul 14%, McCain 13%).

By 2012, the Republicans had switched to a meaningful straw vote at the caucuses.

Thanks - this sounds more like it's a battle of ground games then. I remember in 2008, though, after Hillary came back and won NH, she won NV and the media essentially ignored this and publicized South Carolina much more. I wonder if the same thing will happen again - this result gets overlooked for whoever wins and the national media salivate over SC going into Super Tuesday.

They'll overlook it if Hillary wins. If Bernie wins it will be a media circus.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nevada will be close for a variety of reasons. I'm curious though, the cross tabs suggest 55% of electorate will be first time caucus goers? Is that accurate? Is Nevada that fluid where almost 3/5th's of the population are new, first time caucus goers?

The whole idea of an early caucus is pretty new to Nevada. 2004 is the first one. People in Nevada don't know their neighbors in the same way that people in more settled places like Iowa do. And many people move to Nevada in hopes of getting rich, or for the excitement. They find that it is not so exciting to be working in a hotel or casino, and move back. So the number of people moving to Nevada is greater than the people who stay. And movers tend to be young - younger people don't participate in politics to the extent that older people do.

In 2000, the Democrats appear to have had around 1000 for a late March caucus. In 2004, 2008, and 2012: 8K, 11K, and 12K. The 2012 number was for 1553 precincts at 118 sites. That averages about 8 per precinct, and 100 per site.

Republicans had 44K in 2008, and 33K in 2012. In 2008, Romney had 50% of the straw vote (there are a lot of Mormons in Nevada, and they do have a strong sense of community. But Romney had withdrawn by the time of the state convention. The state convention recessed because of a dispute between McCain and Paul supporters. Paul supporters tend to do particularly well in caucuses, conventions, because they are organized. At precinct caucuses they will volunteer to go to the county convention, or insist that they get their "fair share" of delegates. Or they will challenge the adoption of permanent rules for the convention. Romney supporters might not have shown up for the state convention. And Paul had more support than McCain at the precinct caucuses (it was Romney 51%, Paul 14%, McCain 13%).

By 2012, the Republicans had switched to a meaningful straw vote at the caucuses.

Thanks - this sounds more like it's a battle of ground games then. I remember in 2008, though, after Hillary came back and won NH, she won NV and the media essentially ignored this and publicized South Carolina much more. I wonder if the same thing will happen again - this result gets overlooked for whoever wins and the national media salivate over SC going into Super Tuesday.

They'll overlook it if Hillary wins. If Bernie wins it will be a media circus.

Of course the Bernbots will deny, deny, deny.

[RBH]

there's 35 delegates up in Nevada. I'd think the winning candidate gets 18 or 19 of the delegates distributed through those caucuses. So, it could be an 18-17 decision and both sides act as if they won.

Unless it's a blowout somewhere, the 2nd/3rd/4th are splitting 50-50, 9 delegates for each, and the winner in the 1st CD gets 3 of 5 delegates.

Then the overall winner gets 7 delegates and the loser 5. Splitting at-large 4-3, splitting PLEO 3-2.

That adds up to 19 for the winner, 16 for the loser. Perhaps it's 18-17 if the 1st CD winner loses the statewide vote.

[Ebsy]

Sanders has to convincingly win pledged delegates to start making up the ground between him and Clinton. I just don't see him doing that.

[RBH]

The only way to win involves winning. That applies to both candidates.

Anybody got some good guesses or suspicions about the split of the Congressional districts?

CD1 (Las Vegas, Dina Titus): sorta hard to gauge. It'd be an important district to win based off of it having 5 delegates instead of 6. So, a CD1 victory is 3-2, +1, not 3-3.

CD2 (Reno to Elko, Mark Amodei): Guessing it'll be Bernie's best CD. General area favored Obama in 2008.

CD3 (Henderson, South Clark Co, Joe Heck): An important district for somebody like Hillary to win, to counter the impression from IA/NH that she's losing blue collar support to Sanders.

CD4 (North Las Vegas, assorted rural areas, Crescent Hardy): I'd think a lot of CD4 votes are coming out of North Las Vegas. Hillary could have her best district showing here.

The 2nd/3rd/4th are 6 delegate districts. So, it'll be 3-3, unless somebody gets 59% of the magic formula. A range of 59% to 75% makes it a 4-2 district. Short of one candidate advocating for storing nuclear waste at Yucca or supporting a ban on gambling, it'll probably be 3-3 in those districts.

Any actual Nevadans, or people that visited NV once, could help in gauging these districts.

[Tender Branson]

Let's hope real pollsters stop being such pussies and start polling NV in the next days ...

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Not sure if I read right, but I'm fairly certain NV is just a viability caucus and that no delegates are actually allocated based on the results.

[CatoMinor]

Not sure if I read right, but I'm fairly certain NV is just a viability caucus and that no delegates are actually allocated based on the results.

The delegates in NV would be secondary to the momentum Bernie could get from it going into the next round of primaries. And even if he got fewer delegates despite a win, it would just fuel the narrative that the DWS controlled party establishment is trying to keep the progressive activists down and energize his base.

[Shadows]

http://imgur.com/lNTmbVD

The fun part - As per MSNBC, Nevada doubles (2 times - 100% increase) the number of Voter Registrations  compared to 2012.

Should be bad news for the Clinton campaign

It depends on who the new voters are. A lot of people move to Nevada. If most are young whites, then better for Bernie, but a lot of people retire to NV and there are a lot of new Latino voters, and that helps Hillary.   And of course being a caucus, new registrants in general are least likely to vote.   


This high churn rate, large Latino population and low turnout caucus system are why polling is so hard in NV.   I'm a bit skeptical that this GOP firm working for the conservative outlet are the ones to nail it.    Hoperwe will get better regarded polls this week but probably not many (if any).   We may have no clue what's up until they start counting. And of course if it is close, we may never have a trustworthy result because its a caucus and that have only done this a handful of times.   

And that is why the national media sort of ignore NV.

Bernie is doing quite well with the hispanics & ground reports are also positive. There is a strong chance he beats Hillary in the Hispanic votes. Older latinos are not very invested in the political process so new registration could come from a lot of young people, which should help Bernie.

Anyways it's difficult to tell. Nevada win will be HUGE for Bernie, Huge. Hillary has nothing to gain by a small win unless she pulls off a 10% plus win which will be a big boost for her.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Not sure if I read right, but I'm fairly certain NV is just a viability caucus and that no delegates are actually allocated based on the results.

The delegates in NV would be secondary to the momentum Bernie could get from it going into the next round of primaries. And even if he got fewer delegates despite a win, it would just fuel the narrative that the DWS controlled party establishment is trying to keep the progressive activists down and energize his base.

We are still very much in the momentum stage.  Anyone doing delegate math is foolish.  A Nevada win would spell good things for the Bern Man heading into Super Tuesday. 

[Stan]

If Sanders wins in Nevada, Hillary will be in big troubles.
Obviously, She'll be still the favourite, but Her risk is a lame win.
Moreover, a lost of Clinton in Nevada means that She are losing the support of the Latinos, that in 2008 has supported Hillary.

[/]

Nate Silver now says that Bernie will probably win Nevada.

"Probably" as in a 51% chance, but still.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Nate Silver now says that Bernie will probably win Nevada.

"Probably" as in a 51% chance, but still.

Thank you for your heroism, Nate... but we need some data.