Pollster.com

Angle may have weathered the worst of it. Until the next time she opens her mouth.

LVRJ has Angle closer than Rassmussen. How are they paying for this?!?! Why are they polling races in Nevada anyways?! LVRJfloodthezone

This is pathetic that the most radical candidate the GOP has probably ever had in a senate race could be this close in a state where Dems still hold a 7 point edge in voter registration.

But here is the breakdown

SAMPLE FIGURES: Men 309 (49%) Women 316 (51%)
Democrats 269 (43%) Republicans 253 (40%) Independents 106 (17%)

Democrats have a bigger margin over Republicans than this poll shows.

Angle and the Tea Party drew their crazy line in the sand, and decided to go all out with her against Reid. Reid's win this November will completely shatter the "rising Tea Party" meme that the media is orgiastic over. Not because of anything specific to him, but because he's the most powerful Congressional Democrat, and therefore most visible.

I bet November will show us that moderate GOP candidates win in moderate areas, and the nutty ones win in the nutty ones. There just aren't that many nutty areas, and not that many moderate candidates won their party's nomination. Toomey will win because Sestak isn't great, Rubio & Angle will lose for being nutty, and Rand will win because his district is nutty.

According to conventional wisdom, Reid should be toast since he is barely ahead and an incumbent.

However, given that he has come from way back and has a huge amount of loot to spend, he has to be considered ahead at this point. Still, if Angle gets enough money to get her message out in Reid's media blizzard, I would bet she wins, especially if she can get some first class media help.

If not, she will be buried by his dominance of the air waves.

Dave,

LOL. Nice loony lefty impression.

Toomey's just as nutty as Angle and Paul. He just hides it better.

I wish we'd stop talking about the "Tea Party." The so-called "Tea party" is nothing but an astroturf front for the Republican party.

Paleo,

If you think Paul, Angle and Toomey are nutty, that's all i need to know to support them.

I'm sure you didn't need my help.

I have never seen a year when so many racist people in the Republican party decided to run for office.Back in 1994 none of these Neocons would have stood a chance,because America wasn't this divided by race back then.

You are right Melvin. They keep calling us racist and trying to accuse us of being hate mongers too, but how can we not be when someone comes on Fox news like Glen Beck and says "Obama hates white people" and they decide to call that journalism. Most of the GOP isn't just racist, they also hate the working and middle classes too. They wanted all these ways to try to delay and deny 9/11 cleanup workers special health benefits in congress. Thankfully ANthony Weiner had some guts to stand up.

I agree that in 1994 there weren't as many crazies in the GOP like there are now. There were some like Armey and Delay but they were from Texas and states in the south. Now the crazy's have spread throughout most of the country. I never thought Nevada's gop would nominate someone as insane as this Angle, and the fact she is this close with Harry Reid is very frightening.

I have said this many of times,the only Republican President in the past 110 years to stop the the unemployment rate from going up from the number he inherited was Ronald Reagan.Every Democratic President in the past 110 years has done it including Jimmy Carter.I just wish the Media would talk about this,because this only goes to prove the Republican party don't create jobs.

seg,
This will be the most negative campaign in the country. The only message Angle wants to get out is that she is not Reid. Every time she gives her own views she loses votes.
Reid message is "I am not a nut case like Angle" it might be enough if he can turn out the vote in Clark county.

seg:

According to conventional wisdom, Reid should be toast since he is barely ahead and an incumbent.

However, given that he has come from way back and has a huge amount of loot to spend, he has to be considered ahead at this point. Still, if Angle gets enough money to get her message out in Reid's media blizzard, I would bet she wins, especially if she can get some first class media help.

If not, she will be buried by his dominance of the air waves.

So...views don't really matter at all? The fact that Angle's Repub colleagues at the State House find her extreme in her refusal to vote aye on routine items, the fact that the Republican mayor of Reno supports Reid (even though he doesn't like him...because he thinks Angle's crazy)...none of that matters to you or the people of NV. These are not factors in this election?

I beg to differ. Her views and conduct may pass every purity test but are not palatable to moderates or even many Republican moderate-conservatives. All Reid needed to do was exploit what she has already put out there.

Don't you think positions do matter? And doesn't Angle take positions that, whether right or wrong, are definitely not mainstream ones; and isn't it further true that, in order to win in the primary Angle said things that are rightly considered extremist. If they are not extremist (on the right) then what is?

Farleft, who ever claimed Glen Beck's show was "journalism". He is identical to olbermann and maddow. No one accuses them of being journalists. Beck, Hannity, O, and maddow just stir up the pot by saying shocking things and using half thuths. Theyre just dbags with opinions, like the rest of us, only they are on tv.

You and Melvin are no better than glen Beck when you call republicans hateful racists. You have no proof, just like Glen Beck has no proof.

Again, Reid trapped below 45 percent of the vote. This far out, that is the only # that means anything. Angle is finally advertising and has two very good tv ads.

Her campaign here says they will try and tie Reid directly to Barry....which is a great idea since he is on tape campaigning for Reid and Barry's approval here is i nthe toilet. Below 40 in some polls, as this poll also shows.

I suspect in the coming weeks I will see ads by Angle showing Reid and Barry side by side. hahahah, Harry's cap of support might even drop now! Thank you Mr. president!

Reid is dying to have a Debate with this woman,but she keep rejecting his request.This is unreal.

Angle = Yucca Mountain. Reid has a winning campaign. In the end all politics are local.

And as a Washington Resident an Angle win wouldn't be too bad for me because it means they'd move all the nuclear waste from Hanford to Yucca Mountain. I really wouldn't mind Nevada ending up being America's dumping ground for random hazardous wastes.

Generally, incumbents in this position are pretty bad off. I think Nevadans are pretty ticked off with Harry Reid so I really think it would be foolish to think that Angle is toast. For Reid to be polling 43% is just horrific.

Reid has a winning campaign? In 2004 he got over 60 percent of the vote....now he cannot poll above 45....He is the incumbant, so by defautl he is favored to win...Angle is in a statistical tie with him in recent polls. His support is capped.

Angle will win Northern NV. Titus is trailing in NV-03, which is the swing half of Clark County. The Heckster will defeat Titus...which means Angle will probably win that portion of Clark County along with all of rural NV. NV-03 probably leans right anyway, it only went to titus in the 2008 Dem wave year. It will go to the Heckster this year, a solid conservative.

That means Reid is going to need probably 70-75 percent of the vote in the city of Las Vegas.....and needs very very high turn out in eastern las vegas to do it....equal to 2008 turn out numbers. He is not going to get that...and he will end up with what his polls give him, 45 percent.

The longer there rmeains a good # of undecides, the more that favors angle...if undecideds have not decided to support the incumbant by October, they will vote by default against the incumbant.

This election will end with Reid 45, Angle 50-52. All reid's money, etc cannot help him. he is tied to Barry....and barry has become very unpopular here in the Silver state. As is Reid. Its so bad for the Reids that the current guvna, gibbons is as popular as chicken pox, but another republican, Sandoval is goign to replace him because people simply cannot stand the Reid family any longer.

Unless a credible 3rd party person enters the race, this remains an unwinnable race for Reid. NV leads the nation in misery right now with high foreclosures and unemployment...and though not directly Reid's fault, he gets balme as an incumbant politican. He will not win.

"I bet November will show us that moderate GOP candidates win in moderate areas, and the nutty ones win in the nutty ones. There just aren't that many nutty areas, and not that many moderate candidates won their party's nomination. Toomey will win because Sestak isn't great, Rubio & Angle will lose for being nutty, and Rand will win because his district is nutty."

A key problem with your analysis is that you forgot that America is a center right nation (i.e. conservative as opposed to liberal) and the Democrats have far more than their fair share of 'nutty' candidates. In most of America, for instance, supporting gay marriage is still a nutty notion but probably wouldn't agree with that assessment because you're biased. Do I think Angle is a bit nutty? Perhaps. But do I think that Reid's better than her? Absolutely not. I would vote for her in a heartbeat over Harry Reid because he's completely sold out to Washington's culture of sleaze and corruption. If you knew every time Harry Reid had burnt his own conscience and thrown his own values under the bus to hold onto his position, you would probably agree.

tjampel:
I think positions matter, especially when they can be framed by the other party in a way that helps them.

I am not familiar with Angle's views. You may be right that she is so extreme that she will defeat herself.

The little I have learned here is unconvincing. The fact that it was a "100 to Angle" could be very effecitive for HER in this environment.

Talking about privatizing SS is deemed looney right by leftists and certainly has some risks if done badly, but it is not at all a looney idea. I believe Germany or some other European country actually does something similar to what Bush proposed. The latter had all sorts of safeguards and limitations of risk in it, but was successfully demonized, anyway.

Again, I have some familiarity with this issue but I do not want to do a complete exposition on it here. I am saying that it could be done safely by limiting the private account part of individuals to some fraction (e.g., half), with 0% being an option (Bush proposal). You and I both would put 100% in private accounts, if we were allowed to.

Right now only some government employees, Wall Streeters, CEOs and union members have defined benefits retirement plans. It has been a gravy train for lifers but a loser for those who work for few years and move on. Also, if your employer goes belly up, you get only the part the feds guarantee. The fed fund is nearly depleted, already. Muncipalities and state governments will have to default on pensions if something doesn't change soon.

Likewise, if inflation takes off, SS may not keep up or be allowed to keep up. If so, you will wish you had had a private account invested in stocks and bonds.

The rest of us have matching funds that go to an approved investment group. We have made money and lost money, but still have done better than the same money returned at the rate of SS. Why is it so radical to ALLOW people to do the same with their SS ? I would. If others don't wish to do it, then they should not.

The real question has been: should folks be allowed to make decisions about their own SS? If they are too ignorant, stupid, unlucky, etc. to do it, then they will definitely lose. Conservatives worry that, sure enough, Uncle Sugar will make them whole. Fine, limit it to those those who show they can survive without SS. Problem then is that they do much better than those who did not invest and take risks, which would offend many libs (not that they wouldn't take the investment option and bank the money, themselves).

The real problems for dems are that: (1) it would make it seem less like an entitlement that good dems are protecting from reps, and (2) it would make seniors feel invested in businesses and thus against government waste.

Well put. Other than 1 PPP poll, every other poll listed on Pollster.com shows Reid less than 45%. For an incumbent with jillions of campaign dollars, majority leader position, and still poll

And the other Nevada race (for Gov) is absolutely to the GOP side. If Sandoval's coattails are long enough, Angle can just get a free ride ticket.

>Reid trapped below 45 percent of the vote. This far out, that is the only # that means anything.

....and still poll less than 45% with 51% unfav is a major disaster waiting to happen

ps : And the best strategy is to tie both Reid's together. It's guilt by association, call it unethical if you want, but it works very well. It worked by showing McCain hugging Bush, and it nearly worked with Wright/Obama.

"Titus is trailing in NV-03"

Wrong.

http://www.mynews3.com/story.php?id=23146

A big factor is labor and Latino turnout in Clark County. If they can get that turnout, then both Reid and Titus will win.

Paleo - I am going off the kxnt poll, heck 46, titus 42. alan stock reported it.

Turn out is always key, but accoridng to data i have seen, the enthusiasm gap favors the GOP big time this year.

That's the last poll out in the race.

The difference in Nevada is that the unions have a great turnout machine in Clark County, which could compensate for any gap in enthusiasm. It was why Obama won the state by 12 points, when pollsters like Rasmussen had him ahead by only 4.

Paleo - Stock just reported their poll last week, tuesday I think.

with the shift this year in latino support to the GOP, even heavy latino turnout will not help the Dems like it did in 2008. Barry won big in 2008 because he won big everywhere almost....thats what happens in a wave. Look at his approval now. Union workers are kind of pissed at Reid right now, because many of them are out of work!!!!!!!!!1

"Union workers are kind of pissed at Reid right now, because many of them are out of work!!!!!!!!!"

As a result of Republican policies!!!!!!!!!!!!

As a result of Republican policies!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL. Which policies were those exactly?

The ones that gave us the Great Recession and job losses of 700,000 a month.

Yea....he is right....GOP policies like the CRA helped start the whole thing, oh wait........ooops! Scratch that one.

It was Wall Street scandals driven by well known republicans like Bernie Madoff...hmmmm, wait a minute, sscratch that one too.

It was the republicans who took control of congress in January 2007.....damn, wait a second, scratch that one too.

It was crazy conservatives like Barney Frank saying Freddie and Fannie were doing great and needed no reform moving forward.........son 'bitch, scratch that one too.

It had to be caused by 9/11 which of course Bush planned (truthers).....ooops! Nevermind.

I guess its just gotta be the Bush tax cuts......its common knowledge whenever people keep more of their own money, its actually a bad thing for the economy!

Ya, thats what we'll do, blame Bush tax cuts. I will accept that.

You're on a roll today Stillow.

I see that the tired old narrative that it's the republicans fault for a recession occuring. So was the 2001 recession the fault of Democratic policies? What about the '91? Republican policies? '80? Democratic policies again? '73-75 recession, Republican policies? '69-70, Democratic polciies? '60-'61, Democratic polciies? '58, Republican? '49, Democratic? '45, democratic?

It's so foolish and easy to blame the sitting president for a recession. I blame the terrible public education system and the focus on social issues over math, science and economic.

John1 - Well our kids might be able to add or subtract, but they can pee in a transgender bathroom! so it all kinda balances out.

FM - I'm just feisty today. I got my annual car registration, its different this year. Check this out, I love g'ment. This is exactly what is listed as the fees for owning a car here now.

Registration Fee - $33
Gvt SVC Fee - $101.50
SUPP GVT SVC Fee - $498
ADD GVT processing Fee - $28
Misc GVT Fee - $64

G'ment.......................take take take.

I really love the analysis that Angle gets a 11% bump out of nowhere. Who needs to add or subtract when you can just come up with enough generalizations to put a meteorologist to shame.

I don't need to live in NV to know when Harry Reid is gone that we'll dump our trash there and take more of their water rights. Sharron Angle will be a pushover and be a 1 term senator if she gets elected if there is anything left of the Silver State.

I actually support Yucca. It would bring thousands and thousands of great paying jobs here. Doesn't bother me that waste will buried deep within yucca. The jobs and benefits would be great for the area. We're already a terror target anyway because of Hoover Damn and the large concentration of people on the vegas Strip every day. Might as well go for the triple wammy!

Who couldn't use a third arm or second belly button anyway?

Hard to promote growth without water. Think Sharron Angle will have the clout to deal with California owning half your water? As an investor I'd pull all my money out of NV at the point where Reid lost and Sharron Angle replaced him. All the pork would dry up in the state and the feds would move out minus Yucca.

CA won't mess with our water. Half of Southern CA gets its power from us. they start playing hardball with water, we turn the lights off. Both sides have an equal grip around the tohers throat.

I'll admit there was a time when Reid loved this state. But these days he is more about serving Reid's interests, than NV's. That is why so many people who supported him i nthe past have ditched him. Remember, he won with over 60 percent of the vote in 2004 even though Bush carried the state. Now he is down around 45.

Stillow:
I don't know if Bernie Madoff is a republican or Democrat. The FACT is though that the Republican appointed SEC did not pay attention to complaints about him.
I am sick and tired of hearing that phony, "Freddie and Fannie" caused the economic meltdown. Smart business writers like Daniel Gross have refuted that many times, or as your hero Sarah Palin might put it "refudiate"

What policies did the Democratic congress pass over a certain veto by President Bush to cause the economic meltdown?

Please answer a question instead of repeating right wing talking points which have no basis in fact.
Also the bs about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd has also been debunked.
Bush inherited budget surpluses when he came into office. What happened to them?

Oh yeah, the poor, opressed rich need help from the government.

I've said it before, i'll say it again, as Barney Frank said, having a discussion with you is like talking to my dining room table!

While I believe due to the environment this year all the incumbants need a 5% buffer to be successful this year.

However I believe this race is different.

This one is driven by negativity. With these negative numbers the only thing that will happen is voters will choose not to show up. If that happens Angle wins handidly because the Tea Party is more than enthused right now and that won't abate in the next 90 days.

AlanSnipes - Freddie and Fannie did start it. The housing bubble was formed because lenders made very risky loans....loans that i nthe past they never made, because they were stuck with the notes. What freddie and fannie did was tell the lenders, we will buy up your subprime paper. By doing that, freddie and fannie created an incentive for lenders to lend money to anyone and everyone....because they were just going to offload the ntoes to g'ment who was more than happy to buy the subprime paper.

Had g'ment not created a buyer for all the subprimes, lenders would not ahve made those loans because then they would be on the hook for them.

The SEC has had internal issues for years...recall under Clinton scandals like Enron, worldcom and Global Crossing happened....everyone was cooking the books in the 90's while the SEC looked the other way.

Dems opposed Bush's efforts to reform the CRA twice to my knowledge....had there been CRa and Freddie and Fannie reform, we probably would nto have had the housing bubble i nthe shape it was....probably still the credit bubble to an extent. the country has been on a credit binge since the 90's and it peaked in 2008.

And Bernie Madoff is a democrat...so were and are those running freddie and fannie, which is why Dems don't want to reform those. Barney Frank told us they were good ivnestments and needed no reform "before" the housing bust.

Bush's surpluses were odne away with the recession which beagan i nthe first quarter of hsi presidency and then the severe affects of 9/11....it was a double wammy in 2001. Then he spent to much money on big enttielemnts like perscription drugs....and failed to provide good exit strategy for Iraq.

You need to open your eyes...the problem is not D's or R's...its g'ment in general....it caused the hosuing bubble, it made it worse by increasing the deficits and debt the past two years....and the bailouts which both parties supported only prolong that which needs to happen.

Drop the partisan hack routine...it gets old.

Stillow:

No one is as much of a partisan hack as you.
You lie, lie, lie. My posts are facts, something you are not familiar with.
Your Bush brain never even PROPOSED paying for your tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the prescription drug bill. The recession of 2001 was short term. As many economists have pointed out, tax cuts, the wars, etc, that Republicans do not believe in paying for are the bulk of the deficit.
Of course your side said nothing about it at the time. now it's "oh, the horrible deficit"

The affects of 9/11, which Bush was warned about obviously don't help, but they are not the main reason the economy went into the tank.

What does Bernie Madoff's being a Democrat have to do with anything? Your Republican SEC let him get away with it.

Also the Jack Abramoff- Tom Delay scandals did not help matters.
The bailout was done under George Bush, but was neccessary because of the policies that created the NEED for a bailout.

By the way, you are the most partisan hack I have ever seen. You know nothing and demonstrate it with every post.

Hopeless...............

Just for fun though, the recession of 2001 was not that severe because of the tax cuts. It injected needed private capitalinto the system to combat the hangover from the Clinton tech bubble pop and then later the effects of 9/11.

I am not sure whi h universe you live in, but fiscal conservatives were screaming at Bush for passing perscription drugs.....tons and tons of us did not even vote for him in 2004 because of the spending.

While you blame the SEC under Bush, its convenient you ignore the itnenral problems iwth hte SEC....Enron, Worldcom, all those scandals began in the 90's under the watchful eye of Clinton's SEC....the problem is not clinton or Bush, its structural problems at the SEC. However you turn a blind eye to that because of course Clinton ahs a D next to his name.

Picking scandsl with indidivual ocngressmen is stupid. You can whine about Delay all day long, cus then we have Rangel...who will probably be forced to resign over tax fraud. Neither party has a monopoly on scndals...unless your a partisan hack like yourself who ignores scandals when the person has a D.

The Afgahn war was supported overwhelmingly by btoh R's and D's....we were after all attacked on 9/11 by forces closely aligned with that g'ment. Bush cannot be balmed for going to war, where the debate comes in is exit strategy. Which generals and both Bush and Barry seem to be struggling with.

The recession of 2001 was made less severe by tax cuts. Reagan cut taxes also to deal with his recession and it helped. Barry of course is doing the oppositte and getting ready to increase taxes on everyone which will make things worse obviously. Plus Barry has tripled Bush's highest deficit. Barry has personally added nearly 3 trillion in debt.

While Bush was a huge spender, barry doubles down on Bush. Bush lost support from voters like me in 2004 becaus eof overspending....and I do not support Barry for the same reasons. to much deficit spending.

Economic stimulus comes from people spending money, their own money....that is accomplished with tax cuts for everyone...not borrowed g'ment money used to spend inthe economy for one time stimulus affects.

You can dither around with your left wing partisan crap all day, no one cares....if it makes you feel better, b all means continue. You clearly do not understand whats going on beyond the left wing talking points....you didn't even realize freddie and fannie creating a buyer for subprimes is the reason banks made all those subprime loans....your blinded by the D next to your name.

By all means, continue ranting....you make for good comedy to the posters on this site who are not left wing blatherbots.

Well, someone questioned me for calling Fox News Journalism. I think it was a conservative who questioned my statement. I am glad that someone actually pointed out that Glen Beck isn't journalism. He is a ideologue like Rush Limbaugh, and considers himself an entertainer. Nevertheless, it is still called "Fox News" News is supposed to be a form of journalism.

MSNBC in contrast has other things on weekends that have nothing to do with politics, and it doesn't call itself completely a news channel. FOX NEWS is it's trademark. I think they should either fire Glen Beck, or perhaps call their network FOX Media network or the FOX Cable Network.