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

[Xing]

Strange cross-tabs, but it seems this race is likely to be close on the Democratic side. On the Republican side... well, so much for a Rubio/other establishment comeback...

[Ebsy]

The evidence seems to be pointing towards this poll being JUNK. Clinton is leading among both whites and nonwhites and is leading by a ton with olds and trailing by way less with younger people, and yet we are supposed to believe it is a MOE race?

[Pandaguineapig]

The evidence seems to be pointing towards this poll being JUNK. Clinton is leading among both whites and nonwhites and is leading by a ton with wolds and trailing by way less with younger people, and yet we are supposed to believe it is a MOE race?

Cnn should stop polling until everyone forgets they are a joke

[Fusionmunster]

ORC got Iowa very wrong, i guess they dont care if the screw up Nevada either.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

Atlasians come to polls like this like moths to a flame.

Fixed it.

[Lyin' Steve]

CNN also consistently showed Clinton in the mid-to-low 30s in New Hampshire.  Their SC poll is also showing the lowest spread of any of the RCP polls (56-38).
Seems like it's pretty safe to say CNN leans Sanders.

[Crumpets]

Nate Silver changed his polls-plus probability for Nevada from Clinton as 51% favorite to Clinton as 69% favorite based (as far as I can tell) solely on this poll. I'm guessing that means he assumes a pretty big house effect in favor of Sanders?

[Ebsy]

Nate Silver changed his polls-plus probability for Nevada from Clinton as 51% favorite to Clinton as 69% favorite based (as far as I can tell) solely on this poll. I'm guessing that means he assumes a pretty big house effect in favor of Sanders?

I mean, CNN/ORC was uniquely terrible in Iowa.

[Xing]

Nate Silver changed his polls-plus probability for Nevada from Clinton as 51% favorite to Clinton as 69% favorite based (as far as I can tell) solely on this poll. I'm guessing that means he assumes a pretty big house effect in favor of Sanders?

I mean, CNN/ORC was uniquely terrible in Iowa.

I'm also curious as to why he changed his prediction so much. He did give Clinton about a 75% chance of winning Iowa, so it's not like he's denying the possibility of a Sanders win in Nevada, but I'd still like to know how he got so much from relatively little.

[President Johnson]

LOL at ¿Jeb? Low energy=Low poll numbers

Great news for TRUMP

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Nate Silver changed his polls-plus probability for Nevada from Clinton as 51% favorite to Clinton as 69% favorite based (as far as I can tell) solely on this poll. I'm guessing that means he assumes a pretty big house effect in favor of Sanders?

I mean, CNN/ORC was uniquely terrible in Iowa.

CNN Final: Sanders +8

Result: tie

PPP final: Clinton +8

uhhhh... what?  

[Ebsy]

Nate Silver changed his polls-plus probability for Nevada from Clinton as 51% favorite to Clinton as 69% favorite based (as far as I can tell) solely on this poll. I'm guessing that means he assumes a pretty big house effect in favor of Sanders?

I mean, CNN/ORC was uniquely terrible in Iowa.

CNN Final: Sanders +8

Result: tie

PPP final: Clinton +8

uhhhh... what?  

The last CNN/ORC poll of Iowa has Sanders +8....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-full-results-cnn-orc/index.html

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Nate Silver changed his polls-plus probability for Nevada from Clinton as 51% favorite to Clinton as 69% favorite based (as far as I can tell) solely on this poll. I'm guessing that means he assumes a pretty big house effect in favor of Sanders?

I mean, CNN/ORC was uniquely terrible in Iowa.

CNN Final: Sanders +8

Result: tie

PPP final: Clinton +8

uhhhh... what?  

The last CNN/ORC poll of Iowa has Sanders +8....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-full-results-cnn-orc/index.html

Changed it.  I got it mixed up with Qunni.  My mistake.  But CNN and PPP both sucked.

[Pandaguineapig]

Nate Silver changed his polls-plus probability for Nevada from Clinton as 51% favorite to Clinton as 69% favorite based (as far as I can tell) solely on this poll. I'm guessing that means he assumes a pretty big house effect in favor of Sanders?

I mean, CNN/ORC was uniquely terrible in Iowa.

CNN Final: Sanders +8

Result: tie

PPP final: Clinton +8

uhhhh... what?  

The last CNN/ORC poll of Iowa has Sanders +8....

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-full-results-cnn-orc/index.html

Changed it.  I got it mixed up with Qunni.  My mistake.  But CNN and PPP both sucked.

In Iowa cnn missed the democratic margin by 8% and the republican margin by 15% so feel free to throw all cnn polls in the trash

[Bigby]

Jebbers might as well endorse Rubio and/or Kasich and go home.

[Badger]

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.

If we put every possible factor against Trump--outlier in an already tough to poll state , a caucus setting which plays to his campaign's weakness and opponents' strengths for ground game organization , plus hypothetically Cruz or Rubio getting momentum from a "better than expected showing " (not winning of course ) in SC---

And even then, with this big a lead , the only conceivable outcome is a comfortable Trump win.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

[Oakvale]

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

I understand that TRUMP has driven you mad, but surely you can still realise that right-wing push polls should be discarded.

[RBH]

there's gotta be starving pollsters out there living paycheck to paycheck that ask how ORC gets paid to do polling.

[DrScholl]

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

Crack is whack, Berniebros.

[Crumpets]

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

The fact that no poll, not even the crazy Republican one, has shown Sanders with a lead is more what I'm focused on.

[Mehmentum]

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

I'll admit I am unnerved.  No doubt about that.

[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.

[Gass3268]

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.

Polling has sucked really bad this cycle.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.