Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

Rasmussen: Nevada, California


Rasmussen Reports

Nevada
McCain 46, Obama 40... Clinton 46, McCain 41

California
Obama 52, McCain 38... Clinton 54, McCain 35

 

Comments
Patrick:

Yet another key swing state where Clinton does much better than Obama against McCain. Not only does she run much better in the 3 states that have been deciding elections since 1960 (PA, FL and OH), but she actually runs better in more of the other genuine 'swing' states than he does. I suppose the superdelegates will just ignore this, even if she ends up with more votes. And the party leaders won't even pressure Obama to offer the VP slot to Clinton. Which is why the Democrats will lose the White House. Yet again.

____________________

Nickberry:

Fascinating... Obama loses to McCain in Nevada by a significant amount (outside the sampling error) and Hillary beats McCain by a significant amount.

Obama wanted to put Nevada in its strategy for gaining electoral votes and say that Clinton cannot win western states (except California)... Maybe Clinton should think about putting Nevada in her playbook.


____________________

Sorry, but I have real problems with these Rasmussen polls where Bush gets a 50% approval rating. I think Rasmussen is really showing his political leanings here. Nevada is a state where Ron Paul supporters disrupted the Republican convention. McCain's support in Nevada is very low. If they held the republican primary now McCain might lose to Paul, even as the clear nominee. I would bet this is an outlier.

____________________

MC_from_Cali.:

come on now everyone, take a deep breath and relax. First of all we all know obama is going to be the nominee. For all the clinton supporters out there, you can either choose to vote for a pro choice canidate who wants to end the war, or McBush. Once obama campaigns out in nevada with gov. richardson his numbers will go back up again. Also for everyone who says he can't win without ohio and florida is crazy. He will win every state kerry won last time minus NH. But he will pick up colorado, NM, and IA, there's his 270+ to win. Also he will put missouri and virginia in play (he's only down a few points in missouri and virginia). Once he selects Sen. Webb as his running mate he can win virginia, and webb is from missouri so he can help out in the rural parts there. Also obama is very close in North dakota and Montata against mcbush.

____________________

killias2:

Where are the other recent SurveyUSA polls that have Obama soundly beating McCain in PA, New Mexico (well, tie in NM, but solid win with Edwards on the ticket), and.. VIRGINIA!

____________________

Nickberry:

Read the poll again... Bush's approval ratings are at 34% in Nevada. "Fair" is not "approval."

____________________

hardheadedliberal:

Query: When general election match-ups adjusted for "likely voters" do the pollsters also adjust for turnout assumptions? If so, do they use the same adjustments for both candidates?

Quinnipac is reporting on Registered Vpters, not LV. I suspect that means that Clinton's support among Likely Voters is overstated in this poll and Obama's support among Likely Voters is understated.

I know there is a lot of data about the typical differences of preferences of Registered Voters as opposed to Likely voters. I believe it is the persistence of differences between RV preferences and LV preferences that has led most pollsters to use a "likely voter" screen on respondents and to use turnout models to adjust the raw data to an approximation of a random sample of the people who will actually show up to vote.

Can anyone who is following this thread offer any insight on what differences are most likely in the RV vs LV and turnout models?

____________________

Nickberry,

"Fair" is approval by my definition, and the Oxford English Dictionary's which defines fair in this context to mean "moderately good". Someone who says Bush is doing a fair job is essentially saying the president is doing ok, but could do better. Fair is not some middle neutral answer; it is the lowest level of approval available in the question.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Agree with everything you said mc:

"come on now everyone, take a deep breath and relax. First of all we all know obama is going to be the nominee. For all the clinton supporters out there, you can either choose to vote for a pro choice canidate who wants to end the war, or McBush. Once obama campaigns out in nevada with gov. richardson his numbers will go back up again. Also for everyone who says he can't win without ohio and florida is crazy. He will win every state kerry won last time minus NH. But he will pick up colorado, NM, and IA, there's his 270+ to win. Also he will put missouri and virginia in play (he's only down a few points in missouri and virginia). Once he selects Sen. Webb as his running mate he can win virginia, and webb is from missouri so he can help out in the rural parts there. Also obama is very close in North dakota and Montata against mcbush. "

Except, you have one thing wrong - Obama already has Virginia locked up:


http://www.surveyusa.com/

And I will personally guarantee that Missouri is going blue this year. you can put it on the boaaard...yessss.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Well rassmussen did say Obama would win NC by 9 and Clinton would win IN by 5. And they were right on there......oh wait, that didn't quite work out.......oops


Anyway, too bad clinton supporters, polls meant NOTHING. To be "electable", you need to win those funny little things they call "elections". Yup, it's true, you can go look it up.

____________________

Everyone really seems to be extrapolating a great deal from every poll here despite the evidence that such early polls, especially with the democratic nomination still in turmoil despite being essentially decided. For a nice objective projection of an Obama McCain general, go to electionprojection.com (it is a Republican site, but has been very accurate projecting elections in the past and uses more than just individual polls or even polling averages.)

____________________

In the Real Clear Politics Average for California, Obama leads McCain by 10.7 points.

____________________

boskop:

poll after poll confirms hillary's momentum.
there is literally nothing else the DNC can base their decision on to seat all the florida and michigan delegates.

they have to or the party is defunct. a virtual oxymoron. caput.

i'd tell them to seat 'em all and release them to vote their whim in a secret ballot at the convention. other than that - let warren buffett foot the bill and pay for a postponed convention pending re-votes in both states.

if howard the scream dean doesn't get this, then we'll come a knockin' on mccain's door with fresh baked brownies, our vote and support.

____________________

Nickberry:

Why do people come to poll sites.... and then say they do not matter anyway. What is your purpose? Why waste your time?

____________________

MC_from_Cali.:

Boskop wrote: "if howard the scream dean doesn't get this, then we'll come a knockin' on mccain's door with fresh baked brownies, our vote and support."

ok I really don't get you. your a democrat but will vote against your countries as well as your own self interest just to make a point. thats smart. Even if you give sen. clinton all the delegates she wants she still will not have enough to catch up to obama, period! so people he is going to be our nominee so get used to it. I can't imagine 4 more years of McBush, he would destroy what ever is left of this country. I say obama should just give hillary the delegates she wants from those states, so everyone can just be happy. He's still gonna win the nomination and the election.

____________________

boskop:

you scream loud like dean. so what.
there is a way to do something and a way not to. obama's drooling for the presidency has parched his value system if he ever had one.

he grovels. he cheats. he parses and believes that no one is smarter than he. but we are.

you see, what happens when you try and browbeat people into believing in change when what you really are doing is resurrecting tamany.

mccain is the legit nominee of his party. he will run uncontested by a like counterpart for the dems unless michigan and florida vote again. or unless florida is seated per the primary and michigan delegates are encouraged to secretly cast a ballot.

if not, shouting will not anoint obama. mccain will destroy him with me in tow. another democrat bites the dust.

____________________

Tybo:

It seems nevada and the western states aren't real fond of Obama.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

boskop, you mean like this poll????


http://www.gallup.com/poll/107467/Gallup-Daily-Obama-53-Clinton-42.aspx


Or this one?

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_democratic_presidential_primary_tracking_polling_history


Guess what dum-dum? Polls don't get you the nomination!!!


If they did, they would have just skipped the primary process and handed it to Clinton a year ago.


Of course, people like you would have loved that, eh?


You really need to get a clue.

____________________

boskop:

not to sure what that has to do with the discussion, but the caucus states depended on activist tactics that may have misrepresented. those who havent got an axe to grind like to vote in silence and anonymity. but nevada did come through for her.

just think if mccain takes bobby jindal, tall handsome, dark complected, ivy educated, first generation, east asian ethnicity....obama wont have much to differentiate himself from.

in fact, he might look , god forbid, 'typical' and very humdrum. the rock star becomes boring.

____________________

boskop:

let's see, when your vocabulary runs to maybe 60 words i guess 'dum dum' works.

btw: polls are all we've got now to pin down a moment. where do the candidates stand at this moment. it does not predict. why do you address polling as a predictor of outcomes?

anyway, i have trouble dumbing myself down even for the sad obama people.


____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

boskop -

you are an offensive bigot. I guess to you, all "dark-complected" people are the same.


Must be nice to be able to put forth such hate speech from the anonymity of your computer. Hey, aren't you late for the meeting? You know, the one where you need your white bed sheet?


Figures you would support the racist candidate like the "working-class whites" in Kentucky and WV.


Hey, have fun tonight though, setting crosses afire on the lawns of the "dark-complected".


boskop- your pathetic attempts at logic are fun to see - just for the sheer spectacle of watching an intellectually limited sap try and manufacture coherent "arguments" out of bogus lies and half-truths.


____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Only a moron would pick Jindal!

You think there are manchurian e-mails now?


Wait and see what happens if jindal gets on the ticket!!

HAHAHAH! That is too funny. I would open a bottle of champagne up the day McCain picks Jindal.

____________________

Coatsie, you crack me up.

I could not articulate the offensive undertones of Obama's strategy any better. You've really made a home in it. How does it go? "If you're not with me, you're against me. Your opinion is worth nothing. You are beneath contempt. We don't need you. Go away." That is the drill, isn't it?

Kind of the opposite of campaigning, really. Trying to decrease, rather than increase, the number of people who feel invested in the election outcome. Well, it certainly marks a "change" from the typical electoral strategy, I'll give you that.

____________________

MC_from_Cali.:

Democrats Obama- Clinton Spread
Total Delegates 1963 - 1780 Obama +183
Super Delegates 307 - 280 Obama +27
Pledged Delegates 1656 - 1500 Obama +156
Popular Vote 49.0 - 47.7 Obama +1.3
Popular Vote (w/FL) 48.3 - 47.8 Obama +0.5
Nat'l RCP Average 52.0 - 39.8 Obama +12.2

hopeyoulikecoathangers: there's no sense in arguing with hard headed people like boskop, bigots like him will never vote for obama anyways. obama is winning in every category possible. So I just suggest just ignore people like him who have nothing but negative attacks. If I can remember correctly he's one of the people from the very beginning on this site that's been against Sen. Obama and look where Obama is right now. Once Obama is in the white house people like him will still be flapping there gums.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

ciccinho,

you are pathetic. are you quoting your candidate again? You know, when she imitated bush with her, "If you aren't with us, you are against us" line??

Funny how you try and attribute it to obama and his supporters when it was your candidate that said it about her shot down sorry-ass gas tax holiday. You know the idea that Michael Bloomberg called "the dumbest thing he has ever heard".

And here's proof - something clinton people have a hard time delivering, namely because they don't know the meaning of the word. Truth, lies....same thing for them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/clinton-to-congress-you%E2%80%99re-either-with-us-or-against-us/

____________________

Nickberry:

Why Obama supporters like these exemplified in this comment area have to call other people names (just because we do not agree with them) is why people like me will not vote for Obama. These antics have been occurring since the beginning of the primary season because the rest of us are apparently too "stupid" (according to them) to see the miracle of Obama.

I used to think it was a few from the far right who were rabid, but now I cannot differentiate between Right Wing and Obama ilk bullying tactics. Civility is definitely not their cup of tea.

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

nickberry-

please, by all means, vote mcbush. says a lot about you, champ.

your reasons are bogus, your logic flawed, & your arguments false. there is no "miracle" to see. rational people can differentiate between a conniving, self-serving, lying candidate like Clinton and one that is at least real. the last time I checked, it was clinton who was acting like a republican. how many millions of democrats' money has she wasted since february when the race was already decided?? all she has is her ambition and nothing else.

It is sad that there are people out there still trying to make up bogus scenarios for her to "win" the nomination. Or try and prop up her candidacy as anything more than a egotistic power hunt. They need to wake up.

Some will even protest by sitting out or voting against Obama. WHO are the REAL Democrats again??? Oh, yeah, I must be dreaming, those that vote for McBush in the fall, of course, silly me, those are the REAL Democrats. Get a clue.

____________________

Ciccina:

MC, its not about changing the rules so Clinton will win. The issue is making sure Democratic voters in Flordia and Michigan will be heard - that they won't be excluded because of a ridiculous set of rules that they had no part in making.

If Dean and Obama succeed in excluding them because they think that's a smart way to ensure his victory - which, as you point out, may not even be necessary - there is no way those voters will not interpret that as a massive flipping of the bird in their direction.

This is Campaign Strategy 101: include as many Democrats as possible so they will feel invested in the election outcome. Which would be the opposite of what Obama and Dean want.

The smart solution would be to seat Florida and Michigan's delegates as uncommitted. No one gets penalized for sticking to the rules, no Michigan voters lose out because they stayed home because not all candidates were on the ballot.

But hey - they've already alientated large numbers of white women and non-black blue collar voters, some latinos too. Why not add Florida and Michigan party faithful to the list? After all, the way to win elections is by alienating significant parts of your base, right?

Coatsie - every time you post, someone, somewhere, moves a little closer to my position. I love it.

Nickberry, I know exactly what you mean. Some of the behavior I've seen upends decades of research into the political preferences of the authoritarian personality type. Decades. The mind boggles ;-)

____________________

axt113:

This is because of the Hillary supporters who are complaining about Obama beating Clinton

____________________

hopeyoulikecoathangers:

Ciccina - more bogus arguments from you. surprise surprise!

By the way, no one is moving closer to your position - unless they stopped taking their meds or were involved in a horrific car accident (never underestimate what severe head trauma can do to your cognitive functions - but I don't need to tell you that apparently).

How did the Obama camp alienate ANYONE? By being a different race? By not being a woman?? Everything he has ever said pitches the largest tent ever seen in politics.

Some people just won't vote for him....maybe you haven't seen the videos....

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/race-in-kentuck.html


What you don't seem to understand is that the delegates will be seated but not in the proportion of the bogus elections. Clinton, though keeps puttering around Florida, babbling about how it is such a big injustice and that Dean and Obama are such villains when really SHE agreed to it and HER campaign people agreed to it as well. All of a sudden they need to be counted??? Where was this "champion of the people" in December or January??

Now it is this BIG disgrace akin to Zimbabwe election fraud where people were killed. WHAT?!?!? What freakin planet is she living on? Up on Uranus apparently.

Go away Hillary, just go away you lying sack of self-serving hypocrisy.

Something to ponder though.....how is a lady who forgives a serial adulterer and stays with him for political gain such an amazing role model for women again??

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

Just posted this comment on the earlier entry on the Quinnipiac, but since the snark has run over here as well, I'll post again:

Wow.

Great day I pick to try to get some work done on the "pipes" of this site. Then I go out to dinner with my family, including my a 3 and 5-year-old children, and when I get home, I discover the 10,000-word verbal foot fight above that makes my kids usual antics seem mature by comparison.

Yes, we have a comments policy here, but it boils down to a simple idea: Political partisanship is inevitable in these discussions, but crude personal insults directed at other commenters will get you banned.

The comments of "hopeyoulikecoathangers" obviously crossed that line and I have banned him.

However many of the rest of you -- and here I'm directing my comments to Ciccina, Nickberry, killas2, conner, boskop -- have not been much better. You seem to feel compelled to bait each other with repetitive rants and issue blanket condemnations of the followers of the candidate you oppose.

Let me try to put this into some context: So far today, this site has had over 56,000 unique visits, but only 725 of those were views of this page. And the average time spent reading this entry was just over 2 1/2 minutes, a statistic suggesting that very few of those 725 bothered to read any of the thousands of words of vitriol posted in the bottom two-thirds of this page. When I have to devote precious time to moderating these comments and refereeing the endless rounds of snark, something is wrong.

So rather than try to sort out who said what about whom, here's my edict: Ciccina, Nickberry, killias2, conner, and boskop, consider yourselves in a virtual "time out" for the next four days. Take the weekend off. Go outside. Take long walks. Smell the flowers. Do whatever you please, for all I care, just refrain from posting here until Tuesday.

And if you can't leave well enough alone and choose to post again between now and Tuesday, I'll ban you permanently.

Clear?

____________________

IdahoMulato:

I dont think one can rely on only 1 poll numbers or polls 5 months away from the GE date. That's why Clinton lost. She relied on polls that had her 20%+ around December and thought she will wrap things out by Super Tuesday. What happened? You're judges to what happened. So I think people shld chill and wait until the DEMS comes out with the nominee. Aside the above, RAS and SUSA have been under-estimating Obama numbers of late. That's why other pollster are beating them for the last couple of polls.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Obama was behind McCain when it was the run up to the
primary season. Then
Obama led McCain when the caucuses were being held there...now he's back down a bit...as is McCain.

This is not strong evidence that Obama can't win Nevada when he's actually campaigning there.

BTW did any see this blooper by Yahoo? http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20080522/pl_rasmussen/caprez20080522

It just goes to show that there is a lot of volatility in the polls and will be until the nominations are set. Obama has gained tremendous support in California now that most people there recognize he's going to be the nominee. I'd say that Californians were also influenced a bit by the Oregon vote.

____________________



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