Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

NV: 60% Sandoval, 36% Reid (Rasmussen 9/1)


Rasmussen
9/1/10; 750 likely voters, 4% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

Nevada

2010 Governor
60% Sandoval (R), 36% Reid (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Brian Sandoval: 64 / 31
Rory Reid: 41 / 49

 

Comments
jmartin4s:

I've always wondered why the Nevada republican establishment didn't try to get Sandoval to switch from the gov race to senate race.

____________________

Fred:

@jmartin4s

The tea party was after Harry Reid. He appears to have been their biggest target, other than Obama of course. I don't think the party establishment would have had much say here. The tea party really influenced the pick of Angle as the nominee. The race will still be close though. It will be interesting to see if people will be splitting their vote and voting for only one Reid, or if Sandoval's popularity will make more voters pick Angle, and leave both Harry and Rory defeated. Or....the third option would be that disapproval of Angle will give Rory more support in the governor's race. This will be interesting to see.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I would agree with Field Marshall on Rory Reid. He is not cut out for politics. I mean I saw polls from 15 months ago that had Rory trailing Sandoval by 18 points. If someone polls that badly, it is pathetic the Dems didn't find someone to challenge him. I saw the debate with him and Sandoval, and I can see that Sandoval is a strong candidate. I can't say I agree with him, but at least he seems competent. The NV Dems were stupid not to run Goodman, mayor of Las Vegas in the primary.

I still think Harry Reid will beat Angle, and voters can at least distinguish a reasonable Republican to a madwoman like Angle. It was bad planning in the Dems part for Rory Reid.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I think that Nevada has a lot of voters who aren't structurally Democrat or Republican, and are set in their ways like they are in Ohio, PA or California.

I think many Hispanics in Nevada might be the difference in the polling between supporting Sandoval and not Angle. A lot of voters split their vote, and I can think of many races where a candidate from one party wins by 30 points and someone from another party wins by a few as well.

Look at Iowa. Harkin has had a long career and has won his elections pretty big and so has Grassley.

____________________

Chris V.:

Nominating the son of the unpopular Senator in the same year that said unpopular Senator is running for re-election was an epically bad idea.

Funny, I remember melvin said that Sandoval was "done" after he made some sort of slip of the tongue that I don't even remember anymore. Our resident crystal ball has failed us!

____________________

Dave:

SUSA out with a poll just now showing Paul +15 in Kentucky. It is SUSA though...

____________________

StatyPolly:

Rand is gonna cruise. I think he learned to control his mouth enough.

Portman and Kasich wins are done deals too.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/09/05/copy/gop-resurgent.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

____________________

Field Marshal:

Drudge is saying that the Ras generic is back to 12.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I don't believe Survey USA. I looked into their 2008 archives and found on several elections they had Republican candidates leadning by double digits who ultamately lost.

____________________

seg:

Field Marshal:
"Drudge is saying that the Ras generic is back to 12."

I am sure our liberal friends will start dissing Ras once again, but I suspect their hearts aren't in it anymore. It is one thing to diss and ignore one Cassandra; it is another when there are multiple Cassandras singing the same dirge.

I think there may be validity to the idea that Ras is a forward indicator for RV, perhaps because likely voters are voters who are better informed and more passionate than others. It is quite possible that they are influential with non-likely voters that make up some of the RVs, so the latter follow behind the LVs at some distance.

In any case, I am looking for a +7-10 rep on the actual Congressional vote, which will translate to a 30-48 seat majority. It is true that there will be inefficiencies in that vote since some of it will be due to brutal a**-kickings, as is shown throughout the south and midwest. However, if it were completely "efficient," reps would win every seat. A majority of only 30 would be highly inefficient.

As Aaron rightly points out from time to time, reps have never enjoyed a gain in seats that large since the 1800s. This, of course, proves little in a time like this. Just as new records are broken and new high water marks are set, so the voters are not constrained by the past. As Taleb points out, the record for the biggest loss in one day in the stock-market held for many decades and thus was used as the max upper estimate of losses in the future --- until that record was smashed to smithereens. The new record is now the Value That Cannot Be Exceeded.

God never promised dems that only they could have large majorities. Then again, he isn't likely to promise reps that they will retain their new majority in 2012, especially if they don't get their act together. If they will listen to me (fat chance), they could sweep up Latinos for a long, long time.

Likewise, though sitting presidents are hard to beat, they DO lose, so it is whistling past the graveyard to assume that Obama will win in 2012. My prediction is that he will not even run if the economy still sucks 6-months prior to the pres election.

His team of "genius" losers have proved once again why it is better to fire everyone associated with a disaster. Instead, many were promoted! They and Obama have strived mightily to copy the great Japanese stagnation machine. I would not be surprised if that is the one thing they actually achieve: 10-20 years of stagnation. Instead of adding ever more to our debts, We MUST deleverage our fantastic public and private debts before we can grow again. Everything Obama, Gaitner, Bernanke, et al have done and will do is adding to the pile of debts, kicking the can a couple of feet down the road with many more lead pellets soldered inside. Worse, they are academics and politicians who have no clue about how business actually thrives and see it as cow to be milked. Perhaps if we squeeze the teats 10 times harder, we will get 10 times as much milk !

Perhaps reps will be better off if Obama squeaks out a win. If so, look for the current and recent students in schools to grow up despising Obama and liberals, just as young people in the 30s hated reps for life.

If the Romney or some other un-imaginative rep wins in 2012, look for them to be saddled with the blame. We need someone with the guts to do what is necessary, like Mitch Daniels or Christy (preferably Daniels).

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I have news for you; the campaign hasn't truly begun yet. It starts tomorrow. We'll be firing back. We won't go down without a fight, and if we do lose, we'll likely regain it by 2010. I'm proud of Obama, and even though I think there are still some good Republicans, the Tea party's voice is a voice that talks all the time about cutting spending and taxes, yet they fail to realize that the whole infrastructure will detiorate, if they truly got what they wanted. No libraries, no free clinics, privatized schools, privatized prisons, privatized police forces. I mean if they are true libertarians, they are basically anarchists. Their American vision is unsustainable, and think even Lisa Murkowski and Bennet in Utah know that their ideology is unsustainable, and will ultimately be rejected hopefully in November, but will hurt the GOP in the long run.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

As a progressive, who I would love to see Obama go up against in 2012 is a Haley Barbour/Sarah Palin ticket. At least we wouldn't have to hear liberal eltists say the candidate is a redneck, Barbour is a self admitted one. That would be a real money saver for Obama.

____________________

StatyPolly:

CNN generic is out.

The same Sep 1-2 sample that gave BO 50% job approval, has GOP 52, Dem 45 for generic ballot. To be accurate, BO's 50% approval was adults and generic GOP 52% is for registereds. All adults generic is 49-45 in favor of GOP.

Definitely, first time over 50% for GOP in a CNN survey.

____________________

Cederico:

I saw all the new generic numbers. At this point i would say its safe to say the DEMS would lose the House. If the GOP gets over 50% I don't see how DEMS could hold on.

I read the New York Times article on DEMS efforts to keep the House. I think the "triage" plan is about the only way they can hope to keep losses below 39 seats. It will involve letting incumbents like Markey in CO and certain open seats go and fighting like heck in the other endangered seats.

The key to a DEMS keeping control is very simple...improving Obama's approvals and firing up the Democratic base. Obama today came out aggressively aginst the GOP (which the public according to CNN still blames 53% for the bad economy)...he unveiled the first part of his new economic plan which calls for more infrastructure spending to jump start jobs in 2011. Of course the GOP immediately said no.

Obama will have to continue to do this for the next 8 weeks....fight daily for his new economic proposals, slam the GOP for getting us into this situation and highlight GOP obstruction. He has to relentlessly do this as it would potentially awaken the sleeping DEM base. If DEMS reduce the enthusiasm gap and blunt the move of independents to the GOP they can save the House barely.

____________________

seg:

Farleftandproud:
You do not seem to understand that our problems are bigger than reps and dems. Bad things are going to happen no matter who is in power, and the longer we put off reducing our deficits, the deeper and more painful the cuts will be. The deficit bogeyman is now in the house.

Just to break even, taxes would have to increase by 40% -- assuming Obamicare is repealed! At the current rates and with Obamicare and Obama spending in place for 2 more years, taxes will have to increase by 50% -- and that assumes that the world will continue buying T-bills at virtually zero interest. Instead, it is more likely that the bottom will drop out of the T-bill market and the cost of our debt will skyrocket.

Increasing taxes on the very rich historically has actually suppressed their tax payments. Furthermore, since those who own businesses make up 80% of the wealth of the top 2%, you cannot soak them for more without suppressing investments and therefore growth.
Where does that leave us? In just a few years, we will have a VAT of 10-20% or even more. It is a national sales tax. Even with efforts to give back to the poor, it is the most regressive tax since the head tax.

Hence, we MUST reduce the deficits, and the longer we wait to do it, the more painful the cuts will be. Obama has shown breath-taking levels of irresponsibility, making even Bush II look responsible.

____________________

seg:

Cederico:
Triage will achieve nothing since the problem is not money. It is issues.

Obama's attacks on reps is their only chance to hold the House, but Obama has so little credibility left that it may well backfire and make the losses even worse. So far Obama has shown a perverse genius in mis-reading the public.

It is almost as if he were a stuffed suit who has been reading what is written for him and has reached the limitations inherent to speech writers and handlers. Or perhaps he used up all of his luck in getting elected.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Seg, on raising tax rates as a means to raising total revenue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law#cite_ref-2

Most on the left just don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR