home

Poll: Dead Heat in Nevada Dems Race

John Edwards' presidential nomination chances are very much alive in Nevada. The Reno Gazette poll, conducted by Research 2000, shows: Obama 32%, Clinton 30%, and Edwards 27%.

Most surprising was Edwards' standing, which jumped 15 points from the last RGJ poll in November. Edwards was second in Iowa and third in New Hampshire and has not campaigned in Nevada since those contests.

This is a very fluid race that could change in any candidate's direction between now and the Saturday caucuses.

But with 9 percent undecided and 12 percent of those who expressed a preference likely to change their minds before Saturday, the race could shift dramatically to any of the candidates.

"In a one- or two-point race, it could tip either way," pollster Del Ali said. "It's a volatile electorate out there, particularly in a primary or a caucus. Twelve percent could change their mind, that could mean all the difference in the world."

Blue Texan at Firedoglake wisely cautions us not to anoint anyone yet. I want John Edwards to stay in this race. His increasingly progressive voice benefits us all.

Thanks to CL, our man in Hollywood, for this terrific Nevada graphic. Every time you see it, it means we have a new post about the Nevada race.

< Darren Mack Plea Withdrawal Hearings Begin Today | Michigan: Little Wait time at Detroit Polling Places >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    On Edwards (4.00 / 1) (#8)
    by mike in dc on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:59:26 AM EST
    If he wins Nevada or SC, or at least finishes with surprising strength, maybe there's an argument to be made for his staying in.  But if he fades in Nevada and finishes weakly in SC, he not only needs to get out, he needs to endorse the candidate he feels is the best agent and messenger of change.  He's stated he isn't interested in being veep, so there's really little for him to gain by staying in the race through the convention, particularly if half his support has left him for one or both of the other two candidates.  He can influence the outcome of the race, but only if he drops out and endorses before the 2/5 Tsunami Tuesday mega-primary.  If he stays in, and gets around 10-15%, it would probably prevent either Clinton or Obama from clinching, but it wouldn't necessarily prevent Clinton from securing a big lead in the delegate count.  On the other hand, if he were to drop out and endorse Obama, it would give Obama a shot at a close 2nd or even an upset win in Florida, and a real shot at beating Clinton on 2/5.  Whoever comes out ahead after that date will be anointed as the presumptive nominee of the party, and whoever finishes behind will have a steep uphill climb to catch them.
    Could Edwards endorse Clinton?  It's possible, but it seems unlikely, based on the way the campaign has gone so far.

    pollsters (none / 0) (#1)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    Do any of the pollsters tend to lean to the left or right (with the slant of their questions)...I have heard that Rasmussen does....What do you think???

    I don't buy it. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    I think it's more like:

    Clinton 40%

    Obama 32%

    Edwards 28%

    Nevada is Clinton Country.  Every institutional player but the CWU and SEIU is pro-Clinton there.

    Wow, Nevada (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:41:33 AM EST
    Has even a medium sized state voted yet?  I didn't think so.  This process is infuriating.  Our acceptance and support of it more so.  The current system GUARANTEES us an inferior result.  Absolutely guarantees it.  

    Ignore the results until ALL Americans are invited to the primary party.  Because the conventions certainly don't matter.  What matters is these primaries, and right now the majority of Americans have no say in how these races are shaped.  None.

    This sh*t has to end.  What is wrong with us?

    The process isn't what is infuriating (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    its the continuing talk that it is over and X has won both by partisans of their preferred candidates (expected and acceptable) and the media (totally unacceptable).

    The process is fine. Its the cell phone, fax, microwave culture induced gotta have it now culture that interfering with the process that is the problem. Talk about rush to judgment.

    Parent

    NH/Iowa Split (none / 0) (#5)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    Was good for many reasons, not least of which it pretty much guarantees there won't be a nominee until after Feb. 5th and maybe not even then.  So it's likely at least half the country will have a say in selecting the nominee.  Yay, democracy!

    Parent
    Turnout (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    The problem is trying to figure out who is going to caucus.  I don't think it matters much who is ahead in the polls, the key will be who can get their supporters to the caucuses.  

    And then there's the debate tonight.  I'm absolutely convinced Clinton started her turnaround in NH with the debate.  Perhaps one of them will have a similar night tonight.

    Lawsuit backlash against Clinton? (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:48:44 AM EST
    It seems like Obama has gained traction on his attack that Hillary is responsible for lawsuit to shut down at-large precincts. If there is no injunction ordered, Obama could benefit from failed legal play.

    I believe. . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:55:24 AM EST
    this poll largely or entirely predates the brou-ha-ha over the caucus site lawsuit.

    Parent
    At Least for Now (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    He is criticizing both Obama and Hillary in his new ads in South Carolina:

    The four 10-second spots, which begin airing today in South Carolina, each show photos of Clinton and Obama while the announcer poses a question. In one, the query is: "Which Democrat opposed NAFTA and other trade deals that send American jobs overseas?" In the second, "Which Democrat has never taken a dime of campaign money from Washington lobbyists?" In the third, "Who's the only Democrat who would ban Washington lobbyists from the White House staff?" And in the fourth, "Who's the only Democrat that beats all the Republicans in the recent CNN poll?"

    They all end with, "John Edwards is the only one."



    Effective. (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    FWIW, it seems that the more people see and get to know about Edwards, the more likely they are to vote for him.

    Which, of course, explains why the media is so intransigent about killing his campaign.

    Parent

    Especially as the economy (none / 0) (#13)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    heats up as the top issue and Iraq fades. It's been his strongest issue all along.

    Parent
    polls? (none / 0) (#12)
    by talkingpoint on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 01:49:12 PM EST
       We should know by now not to trust the polls. After New Hamshire, I will never trust another poll.

    No Decision (none / 0) (#14)
    by jarober on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:14:10 PM EST
    I think the interesting thing is this: the Democratic primaries are mostly (all?) proportional awards.  Whether Edwards stays or goes, it's unlikely that either Clinton or Obama will have any huge tailwind going into Super Tuesday - and that's where 1/2 the delegates are decided.

    You could easily come out of Feb 5 with a roughly even split of delegates between Clinton and Obama, with Edwards having enough to play kingmaker.  

    While the Republicans have more winner take all contests that day, they also have more candidates who will be competing.  I would not be a bit surprised to see some serious moves to change the primary schedule and rules (by both parties) after this year.