NV: Rasmussen: McCain leads Hillary in NV

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

New Poll: Nevada President by Rasmussen on 2008-4-21
Hillary vs. McCain
Summary: D: 38%, R: 49%, U: 0%
Barack vs. McCain
R: 48, D: 43%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

[Aizen]

First New Mexico and now Nevada... Obama's leads in these states have fallen (sad face). He's barely hanging on in Colorado

[Person Man]

Could this be an outlier or something else?

[lonestar]

Maybe its the chickens coming home to roost


so to speak

[Person Man]

Why now?

[agcatter]

Means nothing.  This state will swing back and forth a bunch of times before November.  The fact is that Obama can carry it and Hillary can't.   If anything is clear, it is that.

[Person Man]

Means nothing.  This state will swing back and forth a bunch of times before November.  The fact is that Obama can carry it and Hillary can't.   If anything is clear, it is that.

What's interesting is that the GOP always barely carries it, despite being one of the most socially liberal states in the country. This gives the GOP one out of many reasons not to overturn Roe.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Obama winning Colorado and Nevada, or at least one of those two, is nothing but a pipe dream, as is this whole talk of Obama "winning a new coalition of states".   

[Person Man]

Well, NV or CO are pretty much "must wins" this election and if not this election, the next.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Obama is slowly losing support. The scandals may not have had an immediate impact, but it is hurting him.

[agcatter]

That's the problem with Obama.  He has a VERY small margin of error.  He just about has to have Colorado assuming he loses Florida and and Ohio.  Win Colorado AND Nevada and he gets 269 - 269 tie.  That's assuming he takes Pennsylvania and then flips NM and Iowa (I actually think he will)  That's an awful thin margin to work with.  Even then NH isn't a gimmy.

Democrats would be much better to nominate Hillary.  I'm thankful they don't seem to grasp that.  Hillary wins.  Period.  She'd win Ohio and Pennsylvania for sure and be 50-50 to win Florida.

Too many Democrats have bought into the Obama hype.  I don't get it.  Look at the electoral math.  They are playing with fire.

[Person Man]

Yeah, but Hilldawg puts Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington into danger.

Assuming, she wins Ohio and Penn, She will be in the hole by 32 votes compared to Kerry. Hillary HAS to win EVERY BIG THREE. At least with Obama, you only have to win one. Also, the fact that Obama is holding his own in Colorado is very encouraging...he's actually GAINING there. Maybe he is bleeding in NV, but he seems alright in CO. I really don't know what to think of that.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

With Hillary, however, you lose a substantial amount of independents to McCain and we wouldn't even be discussing states like NV and CO if she were the undisputed frontrunner at this point.  Plus, she could very well lose Iowa, WI, and other states that Kerry carried in 2008.  And if she were indeed a stronger general election candidate, she would not be in the position she is now.   Face it, Dems were royally screwed from the beginning with either one of these two.   BOTH of them have small margins of error.

[Person Man]

With Hillary, however, you lose a substantial amount of independents to McCain and we wouldn't even be discussing states like NV and CO if she were the undisputed frontrunner at this point.  Plus, she could very well lose Iowa, WI, and other states that Kerry carried in 2008.  And if she were indeed a stronger general election candidate, she would not be in the position she is now.   Face it, Dems were royally screwed from the beginning with either one of these two.   BOTH of them have small margins of error.

That could be the case. What will decide this election is whether McCain has peaked or not. He has skeletons in his closet, both ideologically and politically just as bad as Obama. Then again, who owns the media will win the election by a wide margin. It could simply be the case that if we get Dukakis'd in November, that we should have run a white male that would talk about giving the country a couple of years of transitioning instead of pushing hard reforms right away. Then again, if we lose to the party of Mr. 30%, especially really badly, we will be going into uncharted territory in terms of a political organization. Though, it is reasonable that this election could be decided by a couple of millions of vote. That's what happened with Ford in 1976, though he was a bit healthier than Bush in terms of ratings. Sure, the GOPPERs are running a fresh guy, but that could be spun to be bad leadership & uncertainty (given McCain's record), though he will play the "give us another chance" guy.

[Eraserhead]

Why is Hillary the only person mentioned in the threade title? Oh Quincy...

[Person Man]

Why is Hillary the only person mentioned in the threade title? Oh Quincy...

Sure, there is Hillary-mania, but for some reason, her primary defeat has become an even more foregone conclusion in my mind.

[agcatter]

I'm not saying Obama can't win.  Lot's of Democratic tailwind this cycle.

I'm just saying, unless you believe he's going to somehow win Mo, Virginia, or NC, he has to win by a paper thin electoral margin.  No margin of error.

I don't think in the end you'll have to worry about Hillary losing states like Washington or Wisconsin.  Colorado and Nevada, sure.  Hey those are states Kerry lost  anyway and if she adds Ohio or Florida - she wins.

Obama got off to a huge start when he was a clean slate and it looked like he'd be a far stronger GE candidate than he is turning out to be.

Hillary scares the hell out of me.  We've seen all her warts.  Obama's are just now surfacing.  Plus, as much as I dislike Hillary, I respect her toughness in a campaign.  She's a bulldog.  She concedes nothing and that blind ambition makes her relentless.  Also, much better in a debate.  Obama is great - with a telaprompter.  His problems with working class whites are going to be a real problem in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.  Plus Florida is off the table.

It's all academic anyway.  Obama will be nominated.  Again, I for one prefer him in the general.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As do I. I have to believe that if Obama were to lose Nevada and New Mexico, then he won't win Colorado. It would have a very tight margin, though.

Hillary would probably beat McCain in the electoral college. She plays too well among Blue collar Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the elderly in Florida. She'd also win Arkansas for sure.

[Alcon]

As do I. I have to believe that if Obama were to lose Nevada and New Mexico, then he won't win Colorado. It would have a very tight margin, though.

Hillary would probably beat McCain in the electoral college. She plays too well among Blue collar Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the elderly in Florida. She'd also win Arkansas for sure.

At base I think they're likely to correlate some, but New Mexico and Nevada have remarkably different demographics than Colorado.  If Obama's "base" shifts more toward professionals and less toward lower middle class people, he could feasibly carry Colorado narrowly while losing the other two.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

As do I. I have to believe that if Obama were to lose Nevada and New Mexico, then he won't win Colorado. It would have a very tight margin, though.

Hillary would probably beat McCain in the electoral college. She plays too well among Blue collar Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the elderly in Florida. She'd also win Arkansas for sure.

At base I think they're likely to correlate some, but New Mexico and Nevada have remarkably different demographics than Colorado.  If Obama's "base" shifts more toward professionals and less toward lower middle class people, he could feasibly carry Colorado narrowly while losing the other two.

That they do .. I just have a hard time seeing Colorado flipping to Obama, especially if he loses its neighboring states. It will be very close either way for sure, but if he wins Nevada and NM, then he probably wins Colorado. He's just bleeding support badly right now and it's no telling if his ship sinks or recovers when the Dem race is decided.

[Erc]

Obama can win without winning NV...he just needs to win CO (easier said than done).

Heck, he can even win without CO, if he can somehow pull out NV, and is willing to fight it out in the House.


Let's face it, what appears to be Obama's strategy is that he somehow pulls out the NM-CO-NV trifecta.  These are states in which I would think McCain would sell well in the first place---and Obama's got a bit of an uphill battle to fight even in CO.


Or, Obama can win Ohio.  Good luck with that one.

[Alcon]

Obama can win without winning NV...he just needs to win CO (easier said than done).

Heck, he can even win without CO, if he can somehow pull out NV, and is willing to fight it out in the House.


Let's face it, what appears to be Obama's strategy is that he somehow pulls out the NM-CO-NV trifecta.  These are states in which I would think McCain would sell well in the first place---and Obama's got a bit of an uphill battle to fight even in CO.


Or, Obama can win Ohio.  Good luck with that one.

I have to admit, I'm consistently confused by the strength of Obama's polling in several Western states.  It seems like states where he should do well but McCain should too, yet so far the reputable Colorado polls are Obama +7, Obama +9, tie and Obama +3.  I get the impression that we're seeing big news-level swings in those states because both candidates are so well thought-of.

I just assumed that most of those double-approvers would go McCain unless they see a convincing reason not to, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Person Man]

As do I. I have to believe that if Obama were to lose Nevada and New Mexico, then he won't win Colorado. It would have a very tight margin, though.

Hillary would probably beat McCain in the electoral college. She plays too well among Blue collar Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the elderly in Florida. She'd also win Arkansas for sure.

At base I think they're likely to correlate some, but New Mexico and Nevada have remarkably different demographics than Colorado.  If Obama's "base" shifts more toward professionals and less toward lower middle class people, he could feasibly carry Colorado narrowly while losing the other two.

That they do .. I just have a hard time seeing Colorado flipping to Obama, especially if he loses its neighboring states. It will be very close either way for sure, but if he wins Nevada and NM, then he probably wins Colorado. He's just bleeding support badly right now and it's no telling if his ship sinks or recovers when the Dem race is decided.

Obama can win without winning NV...he just needs to win CO (easier said than done).

Heck, he can even win without CO, if he can somehow pull out NV, and is willing to fight it out in the House.


Let's face it, what appears to be Obama's strategy is that he somehow pulls out the NM-CO-NV trifecta.  These are states in which I would think McCain would sell well in the first place---and Obama's got a bit of an uphill battle to fight even in CO.


Or, Obama can win Ohio.  Good luck with that one.

I mean, this could be the bottom for Obama. All the states that are coming up are good for him. Who knows what will happen. I would say its safe to say that NV, NM and CO will probably be at the national average this time with CO slightly above for Obama.

[Person Man]

Obama can win without winning NV...he just needs to win CO (easier said than done).

Heck, he can even win without CO, if he can somehow pull out NV, and is willing to fight it out in the House.


Let's face it, what appears to be Obama's strategy is that he somehow pulls out the NM-CO-NV trifecta.  These are states in which I would think McCain would sell well in the first place---and Obama's got a bit of an uphill battle to fight even in CO.


Or, Obama can win Ohio.  Good luck with that one.

I have to admit, I'm consistently confused by the strength of Obama's polling in several Western states.  It seems like states where he should do well but McCain should too, yet so far the reputable Colorado polls are Obama +7, Obama +9, tie and Obama +3.  I get the impression that we're seeing big news-level swings in those states because both candidates are so well thought-of.

I just assumed that most of those double-approvers would go McCain unless they see a convincing reason not to, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe it just comes down to Bush.

[Gustaf]

Obama can win without winning NV...he just needs to win CO (easier said than done).

Heck, he can even win without CO, if he can somehow pull out NV, and is willing to fight it out in the House.


Let's face it, what appears to be Obama's strategy is that he somehow pulls out the NM-CO-NV trifecta.  These are states in which I would think McCain would sell well in the first place---and Obama's got a bit of an uphill battle to fight even in CO.


Or, Obama can win Ohio.  Good luck with that one.

I have to admit, I'm consistently confused by the strength of Obama's polling in several Western states.  It seems like states where he should do well but McCain should too, yet so far the reputable Colorado polls are Obama +7, Obama +9, tie and Obama +3.  I get the impression that we're seeing big news-level swings in those states because both candidates are so well thought-of.

I just assumed that most of those double-approvers would go McCain unless they see a convincing reason not to, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

As I've noted before, people seem to be voting on Obama and ignoring McCain when they're polled. I mean, McCain isn't really a good fit for states like Kentucky or Oklahoma either. Generally, one would expect McCain and Obama to be strong and weak in exactly the same states. But the polling seem to reflect only Obama's strengths/weaknesses and not McCain's.