Zogby: Hillary Has Small Lead In Nevada

Comments (18)

Billary wrote on January 18, 2008 8:57 AM:

I am mad! They were mean to me. Send more reporters so I can whine and complain.

zonk wrote on January 18, 2008 9:08 AM:

Wow -- and this poll before Martin Chavez, the KING of using GOP talking points, frames, all-around jackass and generally GOP-with-a-D behind his name - endorses Clinton :-)

audit the polls wrote on January 18, 2008 9:15 AM:

People who believe polls believe:
1. the responders are telling the truth.
2. the pollsters are telling the truth.
3. The pollsters have honestly and correctly identified 'likely voters'
4. They got an representative sample using land lines.
5. The people who tally them are honest.
6. Those who own the polling companies are honest.
7. Those reporting the results are honest.

A lot of assumptions. I don't know where people expect all this honesty to come from in presidential elections, since the benefits of winning a widely reported poll are large. Strangely, those with the most money seem to usually win the polls. Yet, for some reason election coverage is based on these polls by big media who consider their news departments a profit center.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 18, 2008 9:31 AM:

Why do they even publish survey results about a contest that they admit they have no idea how to poll accurately?

M Miller wrote on January 18, 2008 9:46 AM:

He never said he didn't know how to poll it accurately, he said he don't know how much and well each side is organizated as to how the results will end up.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 18, 2008 9:50 AM:

It goes well beyond that that- because they don't really have a good read on who's going to turn out, they simply don't have a good voter model on which to base their samples. That's pretty fundamental.

eorse wrote on January 18, 2008 10:06 AM:

The Clintons will win tomorrow. Thanks to their race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

Only a total moron of a pollster will say otherwise.

Obama will be lucky if he came in 2nd. I think Edwards will squeak by him.

Prediction:

1. Clintons (45%)
2. Edwards (25%)
3. Obama (23%)

It is a shame. The Clintons are fooling all the people all the time in their pursuit of obtaining the White House.

But, I am not surprised.

To recap:

The power of the Clinton Attack Machine is to make the voters vote for them, even when they do not want to. They do this by employing gutter-tactics such as falsely focusing on Obama's race.

eorse wrote on January 18, 2008 10:07 AM:

The Clintons will win tomorrow. Thanks to their race, gender, and ethnicity baiting.

Only a total moron of a pollster will say otherwise.

Obama will be lucky if he came in 2nd. I think Edwards will squeak by him.

Prediction:

1. Clintons (45%)
2. Edwards (25%)
3. Obama (23%)

It is a shame. The Clintons are fooling all the people all the time in their pursuit of obtaining the White House.

But, I am not surprised.

To recap:

The power of the Clinton Attack Machine is to make the voters vote for them, even when they do not want to. They do this by employing gutter-tactics such as falsely focusing on Obama's race.

audit the polls wrote on January 18, 2008 10:14 AM:

Another problem with polls, especially early ones: Theres's no penalty for being wrong.

David in Burbank wrote on January 18, 2008 10:30 AM:

"Why do they even publish survey results about a contest that they admit they have no idea how to poll accurately?"

They get paid for it.

audit the polls wrote on January 18, 2008 10:34 AM:

Who pays them?

Califlander wrote on January 18, 2008 10:36 AM:

Wow, way to write off the voters of Nevada as helpless automatons.

In the end, Nevada is a diverse, complicated, and extremely small state whose significance in this process is being magnified immensely by its position on the electoral calendar. It's good that the candidates are duking it out, and partisans for all the candidates have their complaints about the process (racism! sexism! media freeze-out!), but in the end, the voters will have their say and then it's on to bigger states.

Mary wrote on January 18, 2008 10:36 AM:

For all the rabid feminists out there supporting hillary, do you really think she is futhering the cause of women everywhere? She ditched Vogue which would have given her great exposure. But no. She did not stand for today's woman:

A Vogue spokesman confirmed: "We were told by Ms. Clinton's camp that they were concerned if Clinton appeared in Vogue that she would appear too feminine." (Clearly, though, the presidential candidate didn't worry about that when she cried in New Hampshire.)

But Wintour didn't take Clinton's dis lightly. In her February editor's letter, Wintour takes Clinton to task for being behind the times. "Imagine my amazement, then, when I learned that Hillary Clinton, our only female president hopeful, had decided to steer clear of our pages at this point in her campaign for fear of looking too feminine. The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying." Wintour continues: "This is America, not Saudi Arabia. It's also 2008: Margaret Thatcher may have looked terrific in a blue power suit, but that was 20 years ago. I do think Americans have moved on from the power-suit mentality, which served as a bridge for a generation of women to reach boardrooms filled with men. Political campaigns that do not recognize this are making a serious misjudgment."

Read it here:
http://www.wwd.com/issue/article/121588?page=0

Angry Vet wrote on January 18, 2008 10:40 AM:

Mary-

Great article and note. I appreciated that perception and perspective.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 18, 2008 11:42 AM:

Great article and note. I appreciated that perception and perspective.

Hm, this might be the first time I have ever disagreed with Angry Vet about anything. For my part, I really could not care less what Vogue magazine has to say about American politics. Good for Clinton, I say, that she has the self-respect not to try to win votes by talking about shoes and accessories.

MonaL wrote on January 18, 2008 1:10 PM:

Hillary dissed a spread in Vogue?!!! OMG! The nerve, doesn't she know that Vogue readers represent a vast cross-section of progressive Amercian voters?! She'll lose for sure now. *Snark*

Or could it be, sour grapes from Obama supporters? I don't read Vogue, it's drivel and ads for the most part.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 18, 2008 9:53 PM:

Vogue . . . Heck! There appears that there is a corporation that the Clinton campaign forgot to hit up for cash . . . OR . . . If Vogue had only sent a check . . .

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 18, 2008 9:54 PM:

Vogue . . . Heck! There appears that there is a corporation that the Clinton campaign forgot to hit up for cash . . . OR . . . If Vogue had only sent a check . . .

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)