This is consistent with my cynical counter-theory on the Edwards debate thing -- he had decided that, despite his union strength, he actually wasn't going to be competitive in NV anyway, and had SC as a backstop after NH, such that opting out of the Fox debate was an easy decision to skip something in a state that wasn't going to much matter to him anyway.

I stopped paying attention to polls that feature contenders that have not even announced they are running. This is what I call a "wishful thinking" poll. Are there any Nevada polls that do not feature Al Gore?

I love the guy, but I can't this poll seriously when he's in it.

TAKE.

;p

I'm damn sure that this is not a poll that accurately questioned the correct voters (ones that will show up to the Nevada caucus).  The attendance will be very low, even compared to Iowa.

If someone can get conduct a poll that asks 1) how likely are you to attend the 2008 caucus? AND 2) did you attend the 2004 cacus?, THEN I'll believe the numbers.  Good luck to anyone who tries though... it would be very difficult.

This looks like a poll of regsitered Dems in Nevada.  I don't concede that Hillary is probably leading among regsitered Dems.  Also, I happen to believe that Obama is #2 and Edwards #3.  That fits pretty well.  I don't like that they've included Gore because the chance of him entering seems remote now, in my opinion.

It's not surprising that Nevada polls would look similar to national polls this far out.  Nevadans aren't used to taking a harder look at the candidates like Iowans and NH'ers are, though I'm confident they'll learn.  I'd bet Nevada polls will start to take on unique numbers sometime next fall/winter when they realize how important their caucus will be.

Anyone know why Edwards is the only man that has the support of more women than men?

My Grammar sucks tonight. I should not have had wine with dinner.

Sorry. (lol)

This poll is worthless.

From the Reno Gazette-Journal which cosponsored the poll with KNRV:

The poll, conducted by Research 2000 from March 6-8, polled 600 voters statewide who vote regularly in state elections. The poll consisted of 240 Democrats, 246 Republicans and 114 independents. Of those surveyed, 306 were women and 294 men. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

I forget the calculation but the MoE among Democrats  is much higher, given these numbers, than +/- 4%.

Yes KRNV did a horrible job, but it's not possible to do a valid poll of Nev. in March 2007.  Who will show up to the caucus?  The supporters of the candidate whose campaign gets them to the precinct meetings.  It's going to be all about organization.

NOW I am absolutely certain that most pollsters and operatives that listen to polls (not to mention pundits) have no idea WTF they are doing.

Not polling likely caucus-goers?  That's f'ing amateur!

And again, polling like this does not factor in organization, second choices, and those whom those polled will not support - very important in caucus states.  It's like the polling outfits and commissioners have no idea how politics works.

Warning to pundits who cite polls like this: come across as a moron at your own risk!

This poll is meaningless..........

Do state delegates believe Hillary is electable?

As we know, John Edwards is the only electable candidate in our democratic field.

My instinct is the caucus support is much closer than that among Hillary, Obama and Edwards. I would ignore this as a caucus poll and take it as more of a statewide poll of overall preference.

Actually, by far the most interesting aspect is the crosstabs of the hypothetical presidential matchups. Hillary is much weaker than Obama among both women and independents, when matched up against McCain or Guiliani. Edwards doesn't fare particularly well in those head-to-head general election matchups, roughly the same as Hillary.