Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Review-Journal/ Mason-Dixon NV Caucus


A new Review-Journal/Mason-Dixon Nevada survey (conducted 1/14 through 1/16) finds:

  • 500 Likely Democratic Caucus Goers (± 4.5%)

    41 Clinton
    32 Obama
    14 Edwards
    3 Kucinich
    10 Undecided
  • 500 Likely Republican Caucus Goers (± 4.5%)

    34 Romney
    19 McCain
    13 Huckabee
    8 Thompson
    7 Paul
    6 Giuliani
    2 Hunter
    11 Undecided

 

Comments
Jeff Winchell:

What the heck? Zogby and Mason-Dixon NV polls in the past few days have Edwards at 13 (12 and 14) while ARG and Research 2000 have Edwards at 26 (25 and 27).

Is there any data from these pollsters to explain these huge differences?

____________________

Nick Panagakis:


Elections are not all alike; i.e., general elections, primary elections, caucuses. Poll efficacy declines as you go down the list. Primaries can be more fluid than general elections. Because of low turnout, caucus polls have the added burden of who turns out.

In NV, only 9000 voters attended the Den caucus - 1% of all NV registered voters. This year 10s of thousands are expected to turn out. Composition of that turnout is an unknown. The pollsters are trying to do their best in a difficult situation.

Patience is a virtue. And so is temperate disposition. That goes for Chris Matthews too.

.

____________________

Anonymous:

"Patience is a virtue. And so is temperate disposition. That goes for Chris Matthews too."

So true...

____________________

Dan:

Don't believe this garbage poll. All you need to do is go to Las Vegas and see the MASSIVE grassroots support for Ron Paul to realize that he is about to shock the world.

____________________

Chantal:

Seriously now, you Ron Paul fanatics were saying Paul was going to shock the world in Iowa, and then in New Hampshire. But actually, the polls had Ron Paul in a distant fifth, and that's how he ended up placing. I'm sure you all want to believe that Paul will win in the end, just like the Bushies all believe we will win in Iraq, just like Huckabee believes in evolution, but I think the evidence to the contrary speaks for itself.

____________________

Jeff Winchell:

I'm not sure getting into a pro/anti Paul debate is part of this forum's purpose, but at the risk of just stating a small thing - I didn't see how Paul was a distant 5th unless distant means vs. 1st place in which case distant is a redundant adjective that seems to uncalled for. I also don't know what shock the world, but his 10% showing in Iowa far exceeded analyst's expectations and his 8% showing in NH was probably a bit less than those same expectations. I don't know what those people expected in MI, but CNN seemed to be surprised by his showing there.

So, all in all, no hype (pro or against) seems called for.

____________________

Shaka Zulu:

Screw em' all...I'm writing in Bin Laden!

____________________

Henry:

Well the interesting thing is, if the NV caucuses work like the Iowa ones, if this poll is correct, then in a lot of places where Edwards isn't Viable, those votes will probably end up going to Obama, which should change the final result quite a bit.

But I don't believe these polls for a minute. As has been pointed out, it's very hard to judge what's going to happen in this new situation.

____________________



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