Nevada Poll Flashback: ARG Poll - December 1-6: Clinton 45, Obama 18, Edwards 14

[zulchzulu]

It looks like a lot of Edwards support as well as other second tier candidates went to Obama in the final analysis with Clinton 51, Obama 45 and Edwards 4. Obama won more delegates than Clinton.

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton among men 40% to 27%, with John Edwards at 24%. Clinton leads Obama and Edwards among women 41% to 25% each for Obama and Edwards. Edwards leads among union members with 34%, followed by Obama at 29% and Clinton at 28%.

More details:

Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Democratic caucus goers living in Nevada (535 Democrats and 65 non-partisan (independent) voters).

Sample Dates: January 9-14, 2008

Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Question Wording:

If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were being held today between (names rotated) Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama, for whom would you vote?

Would you say that you definitely plan to participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus, that you might participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus, or that you will probably not participate in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus?

http://americanresearchgroup.com

[aquart]

1. Fantastic! There are more women than men.

[RiverStone]

2. Going off of this - Obama is the true comeback kid!

Thanks for sharing :hi:

[MADem]

3. No offense, but it is a CAUCUS. It "looks like" nothing.

A caucus is all about campaign organization. If you get more of YOUR people to go to a site and stand around, you WIN.

Polls go around asking people, Are YOU gonna go? People always lie and say yes, even if they have to work. Who do you like? Well, gee, I like X...

Then X tanks, because X's organization sucked.

You can't predict anything from polls preceding a caucus. You can probably get a better idea if you can guage the effectiveness of their Get Out the Caucusgoer efforts on the ground.

[sandnsea]

4. So Obama had a better organization

and Hillary's sucked because she didn't meet the numbers in the poll? Is that your position??

[MADem]

5. No, that's not my position. Go back and read what I wrote. NT

[sunonmars]

8. actually shhe took over 50% of the caucus

So she won plain and simple, if it had been a straight primary vote,i suspect she'd have creamed him by a huge margin.

Look at the numbers she was ahead in Clark county, the biggest by miles, she led massively.

Obama was lucky it was a caucus, a primary may have been more deadly.

[zulchzulu]

6. On edit, I added the particulars on the poll data

It was likely caucus goers.

Granted, it is all about the ground game with caucus voting. That is certainly more difficult than just wearing a button or bumpersticker and blogging for a candidate. It involves a lot of volunteers, coordination and experienced organizational grassroots efforts.

[JDPriestly]

7. The problem is that polls canvass random voters.

This was the first time that Nevada held a caucus of this type. It may be that a disproportionate number of Edwards voters did not participate in the caucus. That could be easily explained. Many of them may be weekend workers or low income people who are not in the habit of participating in caucuses. There could also be a factor of embarrassment at voting with a minority of voters at a caucus in which your vote is not secret. I recognize that the Nevada caucus is legally, within the Democratic Party, quite legitimate, but I don't think it necessarily reflects the wishes of the broad spectrum of voters in Nevada. It was held in the middle of the day on a weekend day. That is the busiest time for retail workers and also for workers in a number of other areas. It is the perfect time for teachers to vote (Hillary's supporters). It was also made easy for casino workers to vote (Obama and Hillary).

The idea of attending a caucus may also be intimidating to a lot of people who have little money to spend on good casual clothes or who do not feel confident about expressing themselves about politics. A caucus will bring out the real political activists who feel that they belong and are part of the system. It will not bring out someone who perceives him or herself as being poor, not well educated or not so smart. So, the caucus goers may not represent a cross-section of the population.

[MADem]

9. I agree with every point you made.

I'm not a fan of the caucus process. I think it sucks! It not only disenfranchises the people you mentioned, it also cuts out the military who are deployed, those who are disabled, bedridden, hospitalized, and of course, all of the public safety and health people like doctors, nurses, orderlies, and cops and firemen who can't "vote absentee."

It's an idiotic, fire-for-effect system.

[robbedvoter]

10. Great! Hillary got more than expected! (51, right?)