Another new state poll (Nevada)...

[millwx]

Survey USA poll...

Bush: 45%
Kerry: 49%

...haven't looked at the details yet.

...incidentally, on the poll averages I posted on the "New state polls" thread, the SUSA poll would now make Nevada dead even at 45.7% Bush to 45.7% Kerry.  In a day or so an old poll will drop from Nevada.  Barring a new one showing Bush ahead, Kerry will move out to a slight lead in NV.

[ATFFL]

Hmm. . .  They oversampled Las Vegas by 10% and undersampled both parties by about 5% in the registered voters, thus oversampling independents by 10% (rounding making the discrepency.)

Looks to be a typical Republican summer fade poll.

[millwx]

Hmm. . .  They oversampled Las Vegas by 10% and undersampled both parties by about 5% in the registered voters, thus oversampling independents by 10% (rounding making the discrepency.)

Maybe, maybe not.

1) Since they also undersampled Dems... undersampling both parties... there is zero indication of the "summer Republican fade".

2) Moreover, w.r.t. party ID, this is often a self-identifier, which can sway with the match-up numbers.  Not a reliable piece of data.  I only balk at it when it is severely out of whack... like in the old LA Times poll.  And it's why some people don't like to weight by party ID (even our resident expert, The Vorlon, doesn't like party ID weighting).

3) It's impossible to say if and by how much they oversampled the Las Vegas area, because we don't know what the "Las Vegas area" means.  For example...

-If it's Las Vegas proper (not likely, since they specifically say "area"), that's less than 25% of the state; therefore, SUSA way oversampled the area.

-If it means all of Clark County (which is highly plausible), that's about 60% of Nevada, meaning they slightly oversampled the Las Vegas area.

-If it means all of Clark, Nye and Lincoln Counties (an awful large region, but the largest towns/cities in Nye and Lincoln are rather close to Clark and are far outer suburbs to Las Vegas... so, this is also feasible), they total very near 2/3rds the population of Nevada; in that case the "Las Vegas area" was still oversampled, but barely... and MAYBE not at all, since...

4) We don't see their "adults" breakdown (which is what's important, because we need to make sure their RESPONDENTS are spread properly... not their registered or likely voters; registered and even more so likely voters can be impacted by the specifics of the election).  I mention this because the "registered" breakdown is less Las Vegas oversampled than the "likely" breakdown.  That makes me strongly suspect that the "adults" breakdown - if "Las Vegas area" includes these three counties - is not oversampled at all.

[freedomburns]

Nevada will definitely go for the Dems this time.  I guarantee it.  I predicted this weeks ago, and I will tell you why.

Nevada's population has grown dramatically in the past four years.  Many of these are disaffected Californians.  California tends to be strongly Democratic.  Some of these folks may have moved away because they were unhappy living in such a liberal state.  Still, the majority of the folks moving to Nevada are going to be Dems.

Nevada has the LOWEST percentage of registered voters of any state in the nation.  AZ and NV both had 41% registered in 2000.  Of those, only 70% voted in 2000.  This equates to the thrid lowest turnout in the continental US of the voting age population within a state, behind AZ and GA.  NV is therefore some of the most fertile ground in the country for registering voters.

There are many progressive issues on the NV ballot that will motivate the liberal electorate to go to the polls this year.  These include initiatives on business taxes, a minimum wage and the LEGALIZATION of marijuana (which I predict will pass).

There is a new national activist group called driving votes that has already had great success in Nevada.  Driving Votes was organized to take activists on road trips from states that are more or less guaranteed to go for Kerry to swing states to educate and register voters.  Driving Votes has been endorsed by Michael Moore and tens of thousands of people have visited their website in the past few weeks to plan trips.  Drivingvotes can be reached at www.drivingvotes.org for all interested.  Check Yahoo groups for your local group.

I am currently aware of a group of about 50 that left the Bay Area for a four day weekend in Vegas accompanied by a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle who has "embedded" himself with them to do a big story on their efforts.  The reports from the people who have alreay made trips are extremely encouraging.  Las Vegas, "Sin City", is one of the most liberally minded cities in the US and it should not surprise that they have received overwhelming support there.

This is happening all over the country, though, and it is a strong argument for why Kerry may top 330 EV this year.  This poll is confirming my expectations.

[ATFFL]

1- The Republican fade is largely from the independents area of a poll.  Oversampling them will exaggerate the fade effect.

2- S-USA uses either a self identifier (do you consider yourself a . . . ) or asks what party they are registered (Are you regestired in . .  .) depending on client requests.  We're not sure which method wa sused, but S-USA prefers self identifiers.  I know the local NC polls done by them use the second method since the local stations want that.

3- Clark county has 62% of Nevada's registered voters.  If we include the bordering counties it goes up to 64%.  The poll has 72% from Clark County.  

4- Registered voters are what needs to be representative, since that is what we have data on.  We can check with the state to see how many people are registered in each party and get various breakdowns of where they are.

People who are not registered to vote are irrelevant to a poll as they cannot vote in the only poll that matters.  To survey them is a waste of time and money.

[freedomburns]

People who are not registered to vote are irrelevant to a poll as they cannot vote in the only poll that matters.  To survey them is a waste of time and money.

Not entirely correct if they register between the time of the poll and the last date that voters are allowed to register for the coming election.  In Nevada anyone who is a U.S. citizen, 18 years of age or older on or before the date of the election, and is not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction may register to vote.  The deadline to register is 15 days before the election, or October 18, 2004.  

I must add the caveat that previously unregistered voters are rarely a  factor in Presidential elections, but this election may hold a few surprises.

[ATFFL]

People who are not registered to vote are irrelevant to a poll as they cannot vote in the only poll that matters.  To survey them is a waste of time and money.

Not entirely correct if they register between the time of the poll and the last date that voters are allowed to register for the coming election.  In Nevada anyone who is a U.S. citizen, 18 years of age or older on or before the date of the election, and is not in prison or on parole for a felony conviction may register to vote.  The deadline to register is 15 days before the election, or October 18, 2004.  

I must add the caveat that previously unregistered voters are rarely a  factor in Presidential elections, but this election may hold a few surprises.

Agreed, but polls are meant to be a snapshot.  Future polls should reflect updated registration information.  Nevada updates its information monthly so current data is always available.

[freedomburns]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did not know that they updated information monthly.  Thanks for filling me in.

It is possilbe then, if they did not over sample liberal Las Vegas (the rest of the state including Reno/Carson City is MUCH more conservative) that this poll accurately reflects a shift toward Kerry over the past month.  The last available poll that I have seen anywhere was taken 6 weeks ago.  

It sounds like they did over sample Las Vegas by about 10% though.  Wouldn't this only reflect a 10% inaccuracy in the data?  10% is not very significant statistically.  It would still show Kerry up by about 3-4%.  That's probably within the MOE, but my point still stands (less strongly).  Kerry is likely to take this state and seems to be gaining ground.

[The Duke]

FreedomBurns,

You think the Californians who went ot Nevada were liberals?  Wrong.  They were pissed off Republicans who went because they hated the taxes and regulations out here.  If you'd checked the voter registration shift since 2000, you'd see that the Republicans gained 14% in  voter registration.

millwx,

If you're going to oversample Vegas independents by 10%, you've basically asked a bunch of social libertarians who they'll vote for.  There is a sampling error here and a fade effect here.

[classical liberal]

freedomburns-

He's certainly gaining ground given that of the 2 certainly reliable polls from the state: the first showed him down 11 and the second, taken a couple of months later, showed him down 1.

[ATFFL]

Kerry outpolled Bush by 13% in LV and Bush won the rest by 20%.  Now if we weight the poll to the actual voter registeration for the areas the total numbers change to Bush with 381 votes, Kerry with 376 votes, 29 for other and 19 undecided.  This is likely voter data.

Now we have numbers twice massaged, once to get to likely (becuse that is what is in the raw count for the areas on page 10 of the poll) and again by me to correct for voter registration.  It would be better if I had the raw numbers for registered voters, I could get it, but it is too much work.  I still have not weighted them to match the party registration.  I am normally against that, except where you have both parties underrepresented by such a large amount.  Though with S-USA's self identifier method they may have an accurate breakdown.


For those who want to see the party registration in Nevada:

http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/voter_reg/2004/0604main.htm

[freedomburns]

Worthy analysis Tredick, but still open to interpretation.

JohnFord, if you bothered to read my post and retain it, you would remember that I twice mentioned that there would be a lot of conservatives moving from CA to NV to get away from CA.  I still stand by the statement that the majority of these ex-CA voters are Dems.  

The increase in registered Republicans likely came from the other states that border NV, like Utah (!), AZ and Idaho (!), and other central mountain state in the vicinity.  Just because your friends that moved away are all Republican does not mean much.

[ATFFL]

(Psst, you missed an "r" in my handle.)

Most of the epublicans moving into the mountain west region are from California.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-28-gop-west-1acover_x.htm

EDIT:  I could retaliate and start calling you FreedomBuns, but that sounds like a new name for French rolls.

[freedomburns]

I think you got me with that article.  I concede the point.  Still,  that article was two years old.  Give me time, I'll see if I can find new data to uphold the argument.  (Likely that I won't)

I did say:

Nevada's population has grown dramatically in the past four years.  Many of these are disaffected Californians.  California tends to be strongly Democratic.  Some of these folks may have moved away because they were unhappy living in such a liberal state.  

And then there is this, just in from the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

"...Congressional District 3 [where the driving votes folks, ~40 from Bay Area and ~100 from around the state, are headed] in Nevada is close as well.  Recent voter registration numbers show Democrats have closed the gap to just a 55-voter edge for Republicans out of 300,000-plus voters. Earlier this year the GOP had a 2,700-voter edge. "
 
 
55 voters!  Can you handle that?  Between registering voters and doing their voter outreach/issue identification, the work DV is doing this weekend is going to have a real impact.  And people are taking notice.  They do have a reporter with them from the SF Chronicle.  I will post the article when it gets printed.

freedomburns (not buns weisenheimer!)

lol

P.S.

(Psst, you missed an "r" in my handle.)

I swear to goddess that misspelling your name was accidental.  I humbly and sincerely apologize Tredrick.

(It did come out kind of funny though.  Does it imply well-endowed?)

[ATFFL]

This is a better link to the nevada voter registration.   This is the index to look up data for the year.

http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelection/voter_reg/2004/index.htm


Looking there the Republican lead in an overwhelming 718 and trending downward.  The Dems have done a better job registering new voters.  The trick will be getting them to the polls come November.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've never understood how the only state in the country that allows prostitution could've voted for someone like Bush who is a complete pawn of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

[millwx]

1- The Republican fade is largely from the independents area of a poll.  Oversampling them will exaggerate the fade effect.

2- S-USA uses either a self identifier (do you consider yourself a . . . ) or asks what party they are registered (Are you regestired in . .  .) depending on client requests.  We're not sure which method wa sused, but S-USA prefers self identifiers.  I know the local NC polls done by them use the second method since the local stations want that.

3- Clark county has 62% of Nevada's registered voters.  If we include the bordering counties it goes up to 64%.  The poll has 72% from Clark County.  

4- Registered voters are what needs to be representative, since that is what we have data on.  We can check with the state to see how many people are registered in each party and get various breakdowns of where they are.

People who are not registered to vote are irrelevant to a poll as they cannot vote in the only poll that matters.  To survey them is a waste of time and money.

1) Makes no sense at all, since, by your own judgement, there is also a Democratic fade in the poll.

2) You're right, we don't know.  But, as you point out, if SUSA had the option, it's a self-identifier.  So, it's relatively meaningless anyway.  This also makes the entire discussion in point #1 moot.

3) Based on 2003 Census Bureau estimates, and extrapolating to 2004, Clark Co is 72% of the state.  Clark plus Lincoln and Nye is over 75%.  Now, I presume you're not looking at population, but at the RV table.  In which case, you're right, Las Vegas is oversampled.  I would conjecture, however, that many folks answered "registered" who weren't, rather than a polling bias/error/etc by SUSA.  Why?  Given the massive population shift in NV (Clark is now 10% more of the state population than they were in 2000), many Las Vegas residents may not have even been eligible to vote until very recently.  So, there may be a massive number of these people who PLAN on registering but are not presently, so they responded that they are registered.  Other than a bizarre 21,000 drop in RVs in April (cleaning the voter registration rolls??), Clark has increased by an average of 10,000 RVs/mo this year.  That should only accelerate.  So, accumulating another 60,000-80,000 by the end of October is highly feasible, if not outright likely.  At 80,000 Clark Co would close in on their 72%.  Of course, other counties will also see registration increases, so even with 80,000 Clark might come in under 72% of the state's RVs, but they'll be close; and with Lincoln and Nye included, it could hit that.  I will certainly concede that you're right that there may be some oversampling in the Las Vegas area.  For one thing, these folks AREN'T registered now.  For another, did that many lie simply because they intend to register?  I doubt it.  And, lastly, even if a whopping 80,000 Clark voters register (possible, but probably on the high end of what's possible) Clark will still fall short of its 72% representation in this poll.

4) The RV poll distribution should NOT match the population distribution.  However, if you're comparing to actual RV distribution (which it was not clear that you were... until you posted the link to NV RV data), then, yes, the two distributions should match.

Anyway, in short, I think the truth lies somewhere in between.  I think you're right that Las Vegas was oversampled.  On the other hand, amongst RVs statewide the Las Vegas area is massively underrepresented.  As more voters register (which they will, being a presidential election year), the gap will close.

[JNB]

   Clark County(Las Vegas) growth has come by in large from people moving in from CA. Most of these people tend to be middle and working class whites and a large number of Hispanics as well doing the hard labor jobs. Many of these people grew up in parts of Southren California such as the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, the older sections of Orange and San Diego counties, and while they are not liberal by any streach, they are not Limbuagh/WSJ style conservatives that think "tax cut tax cut tax cut", and fact most of these new residents have had only meager gains from the tax cuts. The whites who have remained behind in California are either liberals in West LA, the Bay Area, Central San Diego or are WSJ/Limbaugh Conservatives in Southren Orange and Northren San Diego counties, and to an extent, Ventura County. The Inside Empire counties of California, such as Riverside county, are politically and demographiclaly similar to Clark county in NV.

   Also the residents have a socially libertarian(not liberal mind you) outlook on life. Bush did fairly well with these voters in 2000, but is doing poorly today, that combined with many middle class voters feeling ill at easy because of rising health care, food and gas costs have made NV quite competitive.

   How this pretains to the election, it just shows how weak and feeble Bush is in terms of his communication skills. Reagan in his 84 re election effort effortlessly went from Queens one day to Dallas the next. Bush seems to be stuck in his little echo chamber.

[mddem2004]

   How this pretains to the election, it just shows how weak and feeble Bush is in terms of his communication skills. Reagan in his 84 re election effort effortlessly went from Queens one day to Dallas the next. Bush seems to be stuck in his little echo chamber.

Thats also why Bush is having trouble making ground with the remaining undecideds, he is so scared of any cracks in his ultra conservative religious base that he is having trouble making any real ovatures to the undecided middle. Its all about his base, all the time, and thats going to be his undoing......

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Once the Republican convention happens it'll be a repeat of 1992. That'll turn off everyone in Nevada.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I checked the site a few weeks ago before the June update.  Interesting to see those posters having basic problems with facts.  

For the assistance of those who haven't bothered to check the site, let me provide a few little tid-bits.

First, in June of 2000, in the State of Nevada, Democrats outregistered Republicans 386,202 to 384,459.  

Bush won 50.7% of the vote in Nevada in 2000,

In June of 2004, Republicans outregistered Democrats 363,463 to 354,950.  

I guess I haven't mastered the 'new math,' but these figures don't seem to me to be favorable to Kerry.

Also, with respect to Clark County, in June of 2000 it contained 64.78% of the state's registered voters, contrasted with 62.06% in June of 2004.

Further, the turnout rate in Clark county in 2000 was 69.46%, compared to the statewide figue of 70.15%.

So, the idea that Clark county has 72% of the state voters seems more than a little far-fetched to me.

Again, I guess I don't use the 'new math,' where you just make things up.

[millwx]

So, the idea that Clark county has 72% of the state voters seems more than a little far-fetched to me.

Carl, nobody has said this.  The only thing stated (by me) is that Clark County has 72% of the POPULATION.  This is supported by the U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2003, extrapolated to 2004 (it was 70% in 2003).  The only time I "called out" Tredrick is because I though (it was unclear) he was talking about population distribution (which is nearly 72% in Clark County).  Note that I corrected my statement in complete agreement with him in my followup post.  And note that my original response to Tredrick clear states that I'm referring to population.  Other than that, no one has supported SUSA's 72% claim.  Methinks you also need to get your facts straight... or at least your accusations.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Then you do agree that voters vote and not population.

Please cite a 'fact' which I misstated.

In my math (perhaps a little old fashioned), the extrapolation of trends favors Bush.

[millwx]

Then you do agree that voters vote and not population.

Please cite a 'fact' which I misstated.

In my math (perhaps a little old fashioned), the extrapolation of trends favors Bush.

No, you posted no incorrect facts either.  What you posted was an incorrect accusation.  I can only assume you were referring to me, since I mentioned the 72% population in Clark County.  My concern with what Tredrick said, and it was entirely a misunderstanding on what he stated (as I pointed out in my followup), was that I believed he, too, was looking at population numbers.  He wasn't.  He was looking at RVs.  That, obviously, is the correct thing to look at... but, at that point, I hadn't, I was merely responding to the population (as I believed the issue to be) distribution question.

As for the trends favoring Bush... maybe.  Why only "maybe"?  Your statistics are entirely correct.  But mine are as well... Clark County has seen an average of 10,000 new registrants/month, excluding the blip in April.  I'm concerned about my exclusion of the April data, in case there's something real there, but the decrease is steep and isolated (only in April).  So, I'm am presuming it was a cleaning of the voter rolls.  Also, the registration trend in Clark County favors the Dems (I continually hear that it's Republicans migrating to Clark County from California).  Excluding April, Rep registration in Clark is up 11,700, Dem registration in Clark is up 19,200.  Also, in January Reps had a 13,000 RV edge; it is now down to 9,000 (and that does not exlude April).  The Dems have closed the gap by 4,000.  Moreover, the Dems were more impacted by the bizarre April.  Excluding April statewide the Dems have gone up 33,000; the Reps have gone up only 16,000... a difference of 17,000.  I just wish I knew what was up in April, so I knew whether or not it's "real"!  So, it is all in what data you decide to put up here.  One can easily argue that the trend favors Kerry.  Clark has the most room for registering voters (largest county, very low percentage of population registered), and it is presently already  impacting the statewide RV numbers.  If the registration rate increases (likely) Dems could easily outnumber Reps by election day.  And this is important because, while you did show the June 2000 numbers, you failed to point out that by the end of October 2000 Republicans had the RV edge (albeit slight... by a mere 1,000).  But this year the RV trend is in the opposite direction

Point is, it's all hand waving.  You cherrypicked a few pieces of data.  Anyone else can do the same thing in the other direction.  I've just done so above.  It's impossible to say who the trends favor.

[freedomburns]

In my math (perhaps a little old fashioned), the extrapolation of trends favors Bush.

How can you claim yours is a valid position when you see the polls and how they are trending this year?  See below:

freedomburns-

He's certainly gaining ground given that of the 2 certainly reliable polls from the state: the first showed him down 11 and the second, taken a couple of months later, showed him down 1.

The latest poll, even with possible oversampling of southern Nevada, shows a 4-5% shift to Kerry in the past six week.  Your analysis is flawed. (IMHO)

freedomburns