Rasmussen Nevada: Hillary loses by 11, Obama loses by 5

[NJSecularist]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/nevada/election_2008_nevada_presidential_election

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Nevada shows John McCain leading both potential Democratic opponents in the race for the state’s Electoral College. McCain has a five-point edge over Barack Obama, 48% to 43%, and a double digit lead over Hillary Clinton, 49% to 38%.

In both match-ups, McCain has a solid lead among men and is essentially even among women. McCain has far more support from Republicans than either Democrat enjoys from their partisan base.

These figures reflect a significant improvement for McCain compared to a month ago. At that time, Obama had a four-point advantage over McCain while the race with Clinton was a toss-up. Two months ago, Obama enjoyed a twelve-point lead over McCain.

Rasmussen Markets data immediately prior to release of this poll showed Nevada to be very competitive. These results are updated on a 24/7 basis by market participants and current results show that Republicans are given a 54.9 % chance of winning Nevada this November. Expectations for Democrats are at 50.0 %

A state that Obama needs to carry in the general if he is nominated, because we are essentially throwing away Ohio and Florida in his strategy. This is not good news. The problem with Obama's No Ohio and Florida strategy is that he needs to carry Iowa, Colorado and Nevada to have any chance of winning the election. He has absolutely no margin for error. For Obama to be this far behind in a state he has to win shows us why Obama's general election chances are looking more Dukakis-esque than Clinton-esque.

[scheming daemons]

1. We're not throwing away Ohio by nominating Obama.... losing to another DEM has no bearing on beating

a REPUBLICAN.


You've really become dense and unable to logically think through an argument.

[NJSecularist]

3. Some of you live in this dream world where Ohio is more like Virginia than Ohio.

You've really become dense and unable to logically think through an argument.

What argument are you making?

What counties is Obama going to carry in Ohio other than Cuyahoga and Franklin County?

[scheming daemons]

I'll type slow for you...

M o s t o f t h e p e o p l e t h a t v o t e d f o r H i l l a r y i n t h e O h i o p r i m a r y w i l l v o t e f o r B a r a c k i n t h e G E o v e r M c C a i n.


You see.... for MOST Democrats, the choice is either Obama-then-Clinton-then-McCain or Clinton-then-Obama-then-McCain.

In short... their SECOND choice among the three is the OTHER DEMOCRAT.



Obama lost to Clinton in PA.... but Ed Rendell himself said that he would be able to deliver PA to ANY Democrat, he just prefers Clinton.


Extropolating PRIMARY performance to GE result means that you have no ability to logically think through an argument.

[NJSecularist]

12. False.

M o s t o f t h e p e o p l e t h a t v o t e d f o r H i l l a r y i n t h e O h i o p r i m a r y w i l l v o t e f o r B a r a c k i n t h e G E o v e r M c C a i n.

That is based on nothing other than your wishful thinking.

[scheming daemons]

16. No... it's based on exit polling....

Even in PA, most Hillary voters said they would vote for Obama in the GE (and vice versa).


MOST Democrats would list the Democrat they are NOT supporting as their "second choice", ahead of McCain.



The fact is.... and any political scientist will tell you this... you cannot extrapolate GE performance from Primary performance. It's a different election, against a different candidate, from a different party.


It's not just apples and oranges...... it's apples and firetrucks.

[NJSecularist]

18. 50% of Hillary voters said they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general election.

That is most Hillary voters? That is actually half of Hillary voters who won't vote for Obama in the general election.

[scheming daemons]

23. Nope... 52% said the WOULD, 26% said the WOULDN'T... and 22% said they'd not vote

Can you even READ exit polls?


cnn.com, dude.

[NJSecularist]

25. So that is 48% who wouldn't contribute their votes to Obama.

Thanks for clarifying my point.

[scheming daemons]

28. If you believe that 22% of Clinton supporters would vote in the Primary, but...

..sit out the GE... I've got a bridge to sell you.



And if you believe that 26% of Hillary supporters would REALLY vote for McCain in the GE.... then I'll sell you the Eiffel Tower too.

[NJSecularist]

32. That is what the data says.

I am simply reporting the data. You are interpreting it based on your own wishful thinking.

[totodeinhere]

53. What does it tell us that so many Clinton supporters are so disloyal to the Dem Party?

[GarbagemanLB]

2. In other news, Obama is the winner of the pledged delegate total and will not be overturned by SDs..

[goclark]

4. Obama is no Dukakis

How many young voters did Dukakis bring to the party?

How many voters did he inspire with a message and great oratorical skills?

Obama generates so much excitement and I recall Dukakis putting everyone to sleep.

[NJSecularist]

9. What young voters is Obama bringing to the party?

Young voters only consisted of 12% of the vote in Pennsylvania. They helped him lose the state by 10 points.

[goclark]

27. That is a magnificent 12 % and I'm not only talking about PA

I value young voters maybe you don't and that is telling.

[NJSecularist]

33. I value young voters too. But Obama has not been brining in any more than usual.

If you have any data that suggests there has been larger than average young turnout due to Obama, please show it.

12% young turnout is on the low end and is not very good. Where is Obama's mythical ability to improve youth turnout?

[goclark]

37. Eyes wide shut

[expada]

47. Maybe Dukakis attracted many young voters as of April on that election year

We can't compare the number of young voters that Obama attracts now in April to the number of young voters Dukakis attracted in November of 1988. It would be comparing apples and oranges, because we don't know how many of Obama's young voters will stick with him once he's swiftboated.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Obama does not have a No (insert whatever state you want) strategy.

It's your avatar idol who believes certain states do not count.

Now a poll that shows Hillary losing a state by twice as much as Obama is ... is evidence that he is more unelectable. LOL!

[NJSecularist]

17. Hillary doesn't need to win Nevada in the general election.

Hillary doesn't have a No Ohio and No Florida strategy. She runs well in those states. She has a margin for error in other states. Obama needs to carry 3 states in the West that all went to Bush in 2004.

[jefferson_dem]

29. It's fun to carve up the map an all but...it's April.

After the convention, I'll take a closer look at what electoral strategy I would like to see Obama pursue.

[totodeinhere]

35. Nevada is a swing state. If Obama is stronger there he will probably be stronger in other...

Western swing states.

[Carrieyazel]

42. He's not winning Nevada, and with Obama and Hillary left, it's no longer a swing state.

McCain's basically got that state wrapped up. New Mexico may still be a swing state.

[totodeinhere]

44. I don't know where you are getting that from.

I was going by that poll that the OP posted. It shows Obama stronger in Nevada than Clinton. I live in Nevada and believe you me, if the economy continues it's downward spiral Obama can win Nevada. Plus residents here are furious about the high gas prices and they blame the GOP. We have a lot of wide open spaces here and you have to burn lot of gas to get almost anywhere. It's all playing right into Obama's hands.

[rsmith6621]

6. Thanks Harry Ried For.....

........your leadership. It's pretty bad when a man in his position can't close the deal for a democratic candidate to win the state you represent.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. Obama isn't throwing away Ohio, you're full of shit

April polls aren't reflective of November polls. If Hillary Clinton were Hillary Rodham, Obama would have no trouble winning white votes and he'd be the nominee right now. Clinton has a very loyal following among Democrats but they will also vote for him if he is the nominee.

[NJSecularist]

10. But Hillary Rodham is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And Obama isn't white.

[scheming daemons]

13. "And Obama isn't white"

Tell that to his mother.


Or are you one of those people that believe that "one drop" of AA blood means that a person is "black"?


They have a word for those people..... and an organization....


I think the organization likes the letter that comes between J and L.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Yup and I never claimed that Hillary can't win black voters in a General Election

However, plenty of Clinton supporters are claiming that white blue-collar Democrats won't vote for Obama in a General Election.
If Obama weren't black, Hillary would get black voters probably in the same numbers that she gets white voters right about now. If Hillary weren't a Clinton, Obama would be doing much better among white voters. If Hillary weren't a women, Obama would be doing much better among women.

If Hillary is the nominee she won't be running against a black man. If Obama is the nominee he won't be running against a Clinton or a woman. Pretty simple...

[NJSecularist]

15. Yet Kerry lost white women in the general election in 2004.

It was one of the reasons why he lost Ohio and the general election. He's already having a hard time enough courting the white female vote. Most of those voters vote Republican. If Hillary is the nominee, we will get some of those voters. With Obama, we will not.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. No evidence of that

Hillary does well among white women who are Democrats and blue-collar workers who are Democrats meaning she's getting people who voted for Kerry. She has yet to prove that she can do well among blue-collar Independents and Republicans as well as white women Independents and Republicans.

Meanwhile, Obama has faired significantly better among Independents in open primaries.

[NJSecularist]

22. Kerry lost 10% of the Democratic vote in Ohio.

If he held onto 2% more of the Democratic vote, quite a few of them white women, he would have won Ohio and the election.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. The 10% that voted for Bush are Independents and Republicans that haven't changed affiliation

We lost 51/49 last time which means that Kerry won pretty much everybody that can be considered a reliable Democrat. If you're not a reliable Democrat you're either a reliable Republican or a swing voter. Hillary's appeal to swing voters just isn't substantiated. Her husband did indeed appeal to them, but there is only speculation to prove that she can do the same.

[NJSecularist]

26. They are still considered Democrats.

Bush kept 94% of Republicans in Ohio. Some of those may have actually been Democrats, but he kept them in his coalition.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Right, because Bush won more swing voters

Some of which are registered as Democrats, some as Republicans, some as Independents. If her campaign had exit polling data showing that she won significant numbers of Democrats that voted for Bush in 2004 they would be playing that up quite a bit. IMO they don't have that kind of data because most of that 10% that voted for Bush last time probably isn't voting in the primaries at all.

[NJSecularist]

31. No. Kerry won the independent vote by 19 points.

Bush kept more of his Republican base than Kerry and since there are more registered Republicans than Democrats in Ohio, he won the state and the election.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Again, swing voters cross party lines

They tend to be Independents but that isn't always the case. Democrats are also outnumbered significantly in voter registration in New Hampshire but we won there last time.

Hillary's ability to win people who voted for Bush last time just isn't proven.

[MadBadger]

8. Latest SUSA poll has Obama down 2 in OHio...so what was that about throwing away Ohio?

[Carrieyazel]

39. Obama is down a lot more than 2 in Ohio. It's not possible for him.

Numerous polls are unreliable. Add SUSA to the list.

[MadBadger]

40. But you are the reliable one, okay....

[expada]

43. Bush won Nevada by 2.5%

It would be nice to flip Nevada, although it won't be too easy. It's still possible. It's only April.

[thevoiceofreason]

11. More blather. Hide thread

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Bullshit

Ohio is not being thrown away.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Noes!

[stillcool]

36. does this mean anything?

[Carrieyazel]

38. Obama and Hillary will both lose Nevada. Add Nevada to the "throw away" list.

Prior to the Repubes going with McCain, and before our race came down to these final two, Ohio Florida and Nevada were battleground states that we had a good chance at winning in the fall. Now we can forget about all three. Obama's strict gun control positions will sink him in Nevada. Hillary can't win there either. As soon as McCain starts campaigning there, his "neighbors" to the northwest will favor him by a safe margin.

The only mountain west states Obama has a shot at are Colorado and New Mexico. Hillary only has a shot at New Mexico. The only other real battlegrounds are Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. As you said, Obama must carry Iowa and two mountain west states to have any shot, assuming he keeps all the Kerry states. There's no other path for him to win. His margin for error is close to zero. If he loses Pennsylvania, (which is possible) it's all over.

[MadBadger]

45. What happens if Obama puts Richardson on the ticket? Will you change your tune about Nevada?

[Carrieyazel]

48. Richardson could help him win New Mexico, but I can't see BR

in the VP slot making a difference outside his home state.

[MadBadger]

49. Nevada has a big Latino Population.

[woolldog]

41. Sorry, but you're becoming another jackson_dem

a very disingenuous, cherry-picking, biased propgandist. bye bye.

[VenusRising]

46. And if current trends continue

Obama will be able to make up a 5 point deficit easier than Hillary can shore up an 11 point deficit.

[gmudem]

50. As long as we're going on April polls

You see how Hillary's doing in Washington and Oregon? She's not even beating McCain in most polls. Not to mention Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, North Carolina, New Mexico, NEW JERSEY, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and she isn't even that strong in Arkansas.

Do you really think she'll win without Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota? Not to mention the Clinton-McCain matchups in Florida are within the MOE and for somebody "from the northeast" she's not looking very strong at all in New Jersey or Connecticut.

Meanwhile, Obama is getting great numbers in Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and even Texas and Alaska. Not to mention he is much stronger than she is in Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota.

And while he's down in this Nevada poll, he's up in the previous 3 that have been taken. And Clinton looks a bit stronger than Obama in Ohio but saying Ohio is out of reach with him Obama is absurd.

I can't wait for Hillary to spend the money she doesn't have in Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

[NJSecularist]

51. Did you just throw a few states against the wall and hoped they sticked?

Hillary will win New Jersey, Washington, New Jersey, Minnesota and Michigan. They are all reliable Democrat states.

Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada are all swing states, like they usually are. Obama gives us a better chance in Iowa, Wisconsin and Colorado while Hillary gives us a better chance in New Mexico and Nevada.

North Carolina and Virginia are both Rethug states that neither candidate has a chance of winning.

[gmudem]

52. Nice try.

Washington certainly SHOULD be a reliably Democratic state but if you look at the Clinton-McCain polls there is a lot of reason to worry. In the most recent SUSA poll she is up 48-45, but previous polls have her down 46-43, 41-38, and 48-40. She can't even beat 50% in this reliably Democratic state.

In Michigan the best she has done is tie McCain 44-44 in a SUSA poll taken in late February. The latest poll taken in April has her down 46-37, and two Rasmussen polls have her down 45-42 and 46-43.

In New Jersey 2 polls taken in late March, one has her up 48-43 and in the other she's down 49-46. Minnesota is another state where she's not getting above 50, along with New Mexico, Iowa, Oregon, even Maryland and Maine!

Colorado is only a swing state with Obama, and Virginia is the same. I go to college in Virginia and there are a lot of Democrats here. Northern Virginia is growing rapidly and there are a lot of Dems up here, and not to mention Mark Warner will probably win the open Senate seat here in a landslide, which will gave the state 2 Democratic senators and a Democratic governor. To say that Obama doesn't have a chance of winning here is ignoring the facts.

And North Carolina is surprising to me in how well Obama is doing in the polls there. And even if Obama doesn't win these states, he'll certainly make McCain spend money there, and possibly South Carolina and Texas. Obama is also performing better in Nevada polls than Hillary is so just saying that Hillary gives us a better chance there doesn't make it so. Face it Hillary is the weaker candidate.