Nevada: Obama 52%, Romney 44% (R)asmussen

[Marzupialis]

Conducted on April 30th. Likely Voters.

Rasmussen's March poll had Obama up by 6% in NV.

Link.

[Gregorian]

1. Are there really that many ignorant Americans?

I don't want to live in a country where that poll isn't at least 90% to 10%.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. Widening the gap! And this is Rasmussen, so I'll just add a couple of points, if that's okay.

[progressoid]

3. Ruh Roh.

I don't normally pay much attention to polls this early in the game, but that one is a stinker.

[grantcart]

6. Stinker? Obama is up 8% in a swing state. Pretty good news.

[progressoid]

9. Sorry for the confusion.

I meant stinker for Mittens!

Nevada seems to always pick the winner (except for Ford over Carter).

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Pretty much...

It's an indication of how the race will play across the nation. Nevada is a very solid bellwether state the last few elections.

If Obama wins Nevada, specifically by an 8 point margin, it's going to be tough to find a path to victory for Romney.

[Rozlee]

4. Obama won Nevada by 12.5% in '08.

I was just googling and came up with that little factoid. I read somewhere that Romney will probably have a billion dollar war chest for this election. I was fairly confident Obama would win hands down a couple of months ago. I'm starting to get a frisson of alarm.

[Marzupialis]

7. Rasmussen understimated Obama's lead in '08

In his last poll, Razz had Obama up by 4% in Nevada; link http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_mccain_vs_obama-252.html

yet he won by 12% as you said; so let's not pretend Rasmussen will nail the exact electoral results. this time.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. No way will Romney have a billion dollar war chest...

He's not even sniffing 100 million and there's now only six months until the election.

Now the Super PACs will pump a ton of money into the election and certainly that could push a billion, but even their reach is limited. Elections aren't won or lost because of ads saturating the market. I think people will be surprised at how ineffective many of these Super PACs will be because they don't address voter turnout, the ground game, basic, local campaigning in many of these swing states. Take Ohio. Obama currently has 18 offices open there. Romney has 0. That will change, of course, but the Romney CAMPAIGN has far less money than Obama's. Because of that, they'll be strained where he actively campaigns, opens offices, trains personnel to GOTV and other issues addressed solely by the campaign - not the Super PACs.

[Yavin4]

14. Ads Don't Work on Known Candidates

They're far more effective on unknown candidates. In 2004, John Kerry was not that well known to most Americans, so the Swift boar ads were effective in defining him.

Obama is the incumbent president. We've already had a Republican nomination season wherein the Republicans got free reign to tarnish him on a daily basis.

Everything that's negative about Obama has pretty much been said. The people know him, and no ad can change that fact.

[grantcart]

5. wow

[mgcgulfcoast]

10. sweet

lets keep the MO going

[Daniel537]

12. Booming Hispanic population, increased Democratic registration

Romney's got almost no chance out there, even if 100% of the Mormons show up to vote for him.

[Herlong]

13. GOTV NEVADA

WOOOT!