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

[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.

[DrScholl]

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.

[The Other Castro]

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.

[Gass3268]

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.

[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.

[The Other Castro]

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[DrScholl]

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.

If the cross tabs are wonky, the topline is not sound.

[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.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am pulling for Clinton, but should Sanders win here, with is nominally pro gun support, it will have a domino effect in CO, OK, MN & Ma

[RBH]

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.

space aliens being housed at Area 51 are breaking heavy for Sanders?

[The Other Castro]

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.

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

TROLOLOLOL!!!


Jon Ralston
‏
@RalstonReports

How hard to poll NV?
CNN in '08 two days before GOP:
McCain-29
Huck-20
Romney-19
Rudy-14
Paul--6
---
Actual:
Romney--51
Paul-14
McCain--13

[Minnesota Mike]

Two thoughts.

1- Never trust a caucus poll. Polling primaries is tough enough, polling a lightly attended caucus is nearly impossible.

2- If it's as close as all indications point to it being who wins is really not that big a deal.  There are really only three delegates in play. Congressional Districts 2, 3 and 4 each have 6 delegates they will likely be split 3-3 in each district. CD 1 has 5 delegates available, winner get 3, loser 2 (most minority district, Hillary favored here).  Statewide there are 5 PLEO delegates at 7 at large delegates available, statewide winner gets 7 del total, loser 5. 

[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.

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.

[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.

[Mr. Morden]

TROLOLOLOL!!!


Jon Ralston
‏
@RalstonReports

How hard to poll NV?
CNN in '08 two days before GOP:
McCain-29
Huck-20
Romney-19
Rudy-14
Paul--6
---
Actual:
Romney--51
Paul-14
McCain--13

Ah, so the hidden Mormon vote can create a swing in the vote margin of as much as 48 points.  So that means Rubio still has a chance. 

[/]

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Fair enough. I didn't really have you in mind when I made that comment in the first place.

[Shadows]

Maybe Clinton has a 3-4% advantage instead of 1, but IMO it can be made up still, Nevada should be close.

[Tender Branson]

Good news.

[Kode]

Folks, Hillary is solidly "establishment."  She is "status quo."   She is "more of the same".  She also has lied often about herself and flip-flopped when it has been convenient.  Don't take my word for it.  There is plenty of information on this on the web complete with videos of her speeches and quotes from known and respected news sources.  But ya gotta look for it because the media, although they reported these things originally, don't want to publicize it all again now because Hillary is their gal.

She is a slick talker and well polished and coached.  But dig through that and you won't like what you find.

[Ebsy]

Folks, Hillary is solidly "establishment."  She is "status quo."   She is "more of the same".  She also has lied often about herself and flip-flopped when it has been convenient.  Don't take my word for it.  There is plenty of information on this on the web complete with videos of her speeches and quotes from known and respected news sources.  But ya gotta look for it because the media, although they reported these things originally, don't want to publicize it all again now because Hillary is their gal.

She is a slick talker and well polished and coached.  But dig through that and you won't like what you find.

who care