A new NV poll will come out with Clinton 9% ahead and Romney 15% ahead

[Eraserhead]

Uh-oh. Well at least it will lower expectations...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2008/jan/17/rj-says-romney-clinton-leading/

[Keystone Phil]

Ugh...what a mix of emotions. 

[Gustaf]

Damn! I expected Romney to win Nevada though.

[Eraserhead]

I guess the poll was done by Mason-Dixon. It is worth noting that they underestimated Obama big time in their last Iowa poll.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Did she get that big of a bounce off of beating "uncommitted"?

[Flying Dog]

John Edwards 33%, Barack Obama 26%, Hillary Clinton 26%


That was there last poll from Iowa.

[Lief 🗽]

Romney will probably win Nevada, but I doubt that Clinton is that far ahead of Obama.

[Eraserhead]

Some very good news for Obama:

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1553481720080117

[Gabu]

As we've seen in both Iowa and New Hampshire, turnout is basically everything.  After the New Hampshire debacle, I'm very wary of listening to polls.

[Verily]

Blah. I guess we can hope they're as wrong as they were in Iowa and New Hampshire. I will say that Nevada is completely unpredictable, from any poll, this time around; most of the pollsters have acknowledged this and are staying out for fear of looking like fools, given that turnout could range from 9,000 to 100,000, as the article suggests. I can only hope that Obama will win (preferably widely).

[Flying Dog]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

[Gabu]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

So we have a rumored poll and already a rumor that the rumor has a flaw in it?  All we need now is a rumor about the rumor about the rumor and we'll be well on our way to complete stupidity.

[Alcon]

Mason-Dixon conducting an EMAIL poll?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

But, everyone knows that this method is extremely accurate, as evidenced by the Literary Digest poll of 1936.

[MarkWarner08]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

But, everyone knows that this method is extremely accurate, as evidenced by the Literary Digest poll of 1936.

Plaudits for the snark...

[Ben.]

Do we actually have the details of this poll? Surely it should have been released by now?

[Tender Branson]

Do we actually have the details of this poll? Surely it should have been released by now?

It will be released here:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/special/polls

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

LOL if true. Let's see.

I'm not going to pay any attention to Nevada polls. It's not like polls so far have been any accurate, and no one really knows how to poll Nevada now, so they'd be even more worthless.

[Tender Branson]

The standings among Democrats:

New York Sen. Clinton, 41 percent; Illinois Sen. Obama, 32 percent; former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, 14 percent; Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, 3 percent; and undecided, 10 percent.

Standings among Republicans:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, 34 percent; Arizona Sen. John McCain, 19 percent; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, 13 percent; former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, 8 percent; Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 7 percent; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 6 percent; Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, 2 percent; and undecided, 11 percent.

http://www.miamiherald.com/519/story/384084.html

[Robespierre's Jaw]

GO MITT!! .

Is this a relabile source? Surely Clinton cannot be that far ahead of Obama. This better be a dream. And I better wake up with Obama leading in NV. Because if I don't, it will be like that time I went back in time and found a mysterious planet, with a forbidden zone. This is it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

GO MITT!! .

Is this a relabile source? Surely Clinton cannot be that far ahead of Obama. This better be a dream. And I better wake up with Obama leading in NV. Because if I don't, it will be like that time I went back in time and found a mysterious planet, with a forbidden zone. This is it.

One person's nightmare Connor.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

GO MITT!! .

Is this a relabile source? Surely Clinton cannot be that far ahead of Obama. This better be a dream. And I better wake up with Obama leading in NV. Because if I don't, it will be like that time I went back in time and found a mysterious planet, with a forbidden zone. This is it.

One person's nightmare Connor.

Whilst your best dream Jack . Not that I particularly care about Nevada....

BTW: It's one N in Conor.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

1. Where did you hear the rumour?

2. Is there actually any, you know, evidence, to back the rumour up?

[Gustaf]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

1. Where did you hear the rumour?

2. Is there actually any, you know, evidence, to back the rumour up?

I THINK this is a misunderstanding based on a badly written sentence in the original article. I think the article says that the result of a Mason-Dixon poll was e-mailed out to the newspaper's subscribers in advance, but that people are misinterpreting this as saying that the poll was conducted via e-mail to subscribers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Rumor-

This so-called "poll" is fatally flawed. It was an email poll to the newspapers subscribers. It has zero probability of being correct and statistically incoherent.

1. Where did you hear the rumour?

2. Is there actually any, you know, evidence, to back the rumour up?

I THINK this is a misunderstanding based on a badly written sentence in the original article. I think the article says that the result of a Mason-Dixon poll was e-mailed out to the newspaper's subscribers in advance, but that people are misinterpreting this as saying that the poll was conducted via e-mail to subscribers.

That's probably what's happend, but I'm curious as to who started trashing the poll in the first place.