NV: Rasmussen: McCain leads Hillary in NV
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 02:38:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  NV: Rasmussen: McCain leads Hillary in NV
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: NV: Rasmussen: McCain leads Hillary in NV  (Read 3013 times)
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,667
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2008, 04:50:47 PM »

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.

Actually, McCain could be strong in Kentucky and Oklahoma because of his neo-conservatism.
Logged
Mr. Morden
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,066
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2008, 05:20:45 PM »

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)

Actually, Kerry states + IA + NM + CO + NV = 278 electoral votes, not 269.

Also, as I've said before, all of this discussion about Obama's electability vs. Clinton's electability ignores the question of how Clinton would actually win the nomination.  She can't win the most pledged delegates, and she can't win the popular vote, unless you at least count the votes in Florida.  So any scenario in which the superdelegates hand her the nomination leads to the party tearing itself apart, which will then make her unelectable.

I think just about any scenario with Clinton as the nominee would have her losing badly in the general.....unless the scenario involves Obama dying and annointing Clinton as his chosen successor on his death bed.  Wink
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,667
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2008, 05:45:13 PM »

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)

Actually, Kerry states + IA + NM + CO + NV = 278 electoral votes, not 269.

Also, as I've said before, all of this discussion about Obama's electability vs. Clinton's electability ignores the question of how Clinton would actually win the nomination.  She can't win the most pledged delegates, and she can't win the popular vote, unless you at least count the votes in Florida.  So any scenario in which the superdelegates hand her the nomination leads to the party tearing itself apart, which will then make her unelectable.

I think just about any scenario with Clinton as the nominee would have her losing badly in the general.....unless the scenario involves Obama dying and annointing Clinton as his chosen successor on his death bed.  Wink

LOL..... Yeah, and with her favorables in the mid 40s, I would expect her to get 44  percent of the vote, Nader 1, Barr 1, Others .5 and McCain 53.5.

This is probably the typical  scenario for Hill Dawg.


..I mean, the worst scenaro could isolate her 48% of the Democratic Party with just 50% of the other 52% as support and like 40% of indies-

With those numbers
D 38-  76
R 34-  10
I 28-  40
- 43% of the vote... with McCain at 55- This is what you would get with that-



Basically, New York, Los Angeles, Boston and Ben and Jerry's will vote for her ass. Tongue
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 14 queries.