Color Nevada Blue ...

[AUDub 11,153]

3 minutes ago, Grumps said:

How so? You guys say that Clinton has Nevada locked up and Trump can't win without Nevada. So why should I vote. I mean, why would anyone make false claims about election results? Hee!

No one said that. 

[Grumps 3,704]

7 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

No one sa

Really? Here is one quote from this thread: "Trump has almost no path to the presidency without Nevada." I am quite sure that Mrs. Clinton will win, but I still happen to think that articles like this are put out to try to keep people from voting.

[TexasTiger 12,940]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Pretty much. One is a local Las Vegas station, one from CNN and the other from Remington Research. 

The race is fluid, but I think the confidence in the original post is misplaced. 

Almost no is not can't ...

[TitanTiger 20,495]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Almost no is not can't ...

Not sure what you're trying to say there, Yoda.

[RunInRed 16,422]

9 hours ago, Grumps said:

How so? You guys say that Clinton has Nevada locked up and Trump can't win without Nevada. So why should I vote. I mean, why would anyone make false claims about election results? Hee!

I didn't say Trump can't win without Nevada, although, his almost impossible path to begin with is now even narrower (if that's possible) if Nevada is gone.

[Grumps 3,704]

My apologies. "almost no" is not the same as "can't." I stand corrected. My whole point was that I think that some of these articles are to make people like me not vote. I can't in good conscience vote for Trump, so if people make me feel like my vote won't matter then I write in someone's name that I admire. As you might imagine, if enough potential Trump voters did that then it could conceivable (though not likely) change the outcome.

[TitanTiger 20,495]

21 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

I didn't say Trump can't win without Nevada, although, his almost impossible path to begin with is now even narrower (if that's possible) if Nevada is gone.

I think that's a big if, unless the polls are off significantly.  You're saying the Dems have an even bigger cushion than Obama did when he won by 7.  But that would indicate a similar margin of victory for Hillary this time around, but all the recent polling shows a tie or Trump leading there.

He still has a narrow path, mostly due to Florida being razor thin and needing to pull NC and one other state like NH or CO.  But I'm not seeing this done deal in Nevada for Hillary.

[RunInRed 16,422]

@TitanTiger What I'm saying is, if the guy being cited is worth his salt, the numbers aren't there for a Trump victory in Nevada despite what the polling says.  We'll see.  

Quote

Let me remind you of the math: Trump would need to be holding 90 percent of the GOP base and Clinton would have to be losing 15-20 percent of hers and he would have to be winning indies for him to be competitive. Let me be clear: None of those things are likely. 

The Reid machine and the Hillary campaign did not spend two weeks turning out crossover voters. They know what they are doing. Trump is probably down 12-15 points in Clark County and 65-70,000 votes. You can't make that up unless Election Day turnout is so large and so GOP-heavy that he could. And with two-thirds of the vote in, and with Democrats not simply willing to roll over and not rev up the machine on Election Day, that ain't happening.

The total votes cast so far -- 770,000 -- are well above 2012 after early/mail voting -- 705,000. But because of all the new voters -- 200,000 of them -- the raw vote lead statewide is down from 2012 (Clark is slightly higher) and the percentage edge is about 2 points lower. The GOP has less than a 1 percent turnout advantage, which is on par with 2012.

But votes are votes. And if the Clark firewall is what I think it is, and Clinton has a 70,000 vote lead when those first numbers pop up on Election Night, it's game over. Indeed, 60,000 might be enough. Why? Because the best Trump can hope for is to win rural Nevada by 50,000 votes. And that would be HUGE -- Romney won the rurals by about 40,000 votes. In Washoe, where the Dems have a 1,000-vote ballot lead now, that would mean Trump would have to win Washoe fairly decisively and reduce the Clark margin, which actually is likely to grow, on Election Day.

Look at it another way:

Let’s be conservative and say two-thirds of the vote is in – it was 70 percent in 2012 and turnout is down this year. That means there are roughly about 385,000 votes left. Let’s say Trump did the impossible and won Election Day by 10 points – 50-40. That would be 192,000 to 154,000, or 38,000 votes. He would probably still lose.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevada-early-voting-blog

 

[channonc 466]

I've followed Jon Ralston for years. He knows Nevada politics unlike anyone I've seen. He's very well connected in both parties in the state. His analysis is usually very accurate. 

[TitanTiger 20,495]

20 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

@TitanTiger What I'm saying is, if the guy being cited is worth his salt, the numbers aren't there for a Trump victory in Nevada despite what the polling says.  We'll see.  

 

Yeah, I get that.  But I also tend to think if the guy being cited is worth his salt, we'd see that better reflected in the polling.  I find it hard to believe that she's built up a bigger cushion than Obama did 4 years ago, he won by seven, but the polls are all favoring Trump or are tied.  I'd at least expect to see polls with her 3-4 points ahead.

[RunInRed 16,422]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah, I get that.  But I also tend to think if the guy being cited is worth his salt, we'd see that better reflected in the polling.  I find it hard to believe that she's built up a bigger cushion than Obama did 4 years ago, he won by seven, but the polls are all favoring Trump or are tied.  I'd at least expect to see polls with her 3-4 points ahead.

Yeah, however, when you start to have real votes like we do now, polling becomes of less value, imo.  I think of it as forecast vs. actuals.

[AUUSN 823]

Great Article:

Latina Hotel Workers Harness Force
of Labor and of Politics in Las Vegas

She pulls into the employee parking lot of the gold hotel, set aglow now by the unsparing morning sun. Searching for a parking spot, she passes other women, many of them also in black and gray tunics, hurrying toward the service entrance.

Soon she is heading for the same door, one more guest room attendant who wears a back brace while cleaning rooms for a presidential candidate whose name is on the bathrobes she stocks, on the empty wine bottles she collects, on her name tag.

He will receive her labor, but not her vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/us/politics/latina-hotel-workers-harness-force-of-labor-and-of-politics-in-las-vegas.html?_r=2

[AUFAN78 3,910]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Not sure what you're trying to say there, Yoda.

He don't either.

[TexasTiger 12,940]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

He don't either.

The person I was speaking to does.

[TexasTiger 12,940]

Latest:

 

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/05/ralston-how-deep-does-blue-wave-go/93349220/

[channonc 466]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Latest:

 

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/05/ralston-how-deep-does-blue-wave-go/93349220/

As he said in the piece, he was one of the few at the time that said the polls claiming Harry Reid would lose re-election were wrong. Like he said, Nevada is very hard for polls to get right. 

[homersapien 11,382]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

My apologies. "almost no" is not the same as "can't." I stand corrected. My whole point was that I think that some of these articles are to make people like me not vote. I can't in good conscience vote for Trump, so if people make me feel like my vote won't matter then I write in someone's name that I admire. As you might imagine, if enough potential Trump voters did that then it could conceivable (though not likely) change the outcome.

Hey, it's Trump himself that has been claiming the election is rigged.

[TitanTiger 20,495]

4 hours ago, RunInRed said:

Yeah, however, when you start to have real votes like we do now, polling becomes of less value, imo.  I think of it as forecast vs. actuals.

Just so we're clear though, what you're suggesting with this vote total is that all the polls are in the neighborhood of 10 points off.  Because the most current polling has Trump with a lead of about 3.3%.  But Hillary has bigger early vote totals than Obama did in 2012 when he won the state by 7 points.  

Just saying, I'm not sure I buy the polls being that far off.

[TexasTiger 12,940]

56 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Just so we're clear though, what you're suggesting with this vote total is that all the polls are in the neighborhood of 10 points off.  Because the most current polling has Trump with a lead of about 3.3%.  But Hillary has bigger early vote totals than Obama did in 2012 when he won the state by 7 points.  

Just saying, I'm not sure I buy the polls being that far off.

If Trumpco believes more folks want to vote for his orangeness, why do they object to polls being open?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-06/trump-s-manager-says-we-don-t-know-if-nevada-vote-was-improper

[TitanTiger 20,495]

6 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If Trumpco believes more folks want to vote for his orangeness, why do they object to polls being open?

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-06/trump-s-manager-says-we-don-t-know-if-nevada-vote-was-improper

I appreciate your confidence in me, but I'm at a loss to explain about 80-90% of the things Trump and Trumpco say or want.

[TexasTiger 12,940]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I appreciate your confidence in me, but I'm at a loss to explain about 80-90% of the things Trump and Trumpco say or want.

Just saying they don't seem that confident about Nevada. Nevada is a 3 shift 24 hour state that is very hard to poll.

[AUDub 11,153]

538's model has now switched Florida, Nevada and North Carolina back to blue. Extremely likely that it's now over. 

Get out to vote tomorrow, everyone. 

[TitanTiger 20,495]

19 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Just saying they don't seem that confident about Nevada. Nevada is a 3 shift 24 hour state that is very hard to poll.

Sure.  But then, when you're trying to pull a state back over to your column that you haven't won the last two cycles, and the polls only have you leading within the margin of error, how confident can you be?

Do we have any data on what the polls in Nevada were showing a few days before the 2012 election?  That might be a helpful comparison.

[TexasTiger 12,940]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Sure.  But then, when you're trying to pull a state back over to your column that you haven't won the last two cycles, and the polls only have you leading within the margin of error, how confident can you be?

Do we have any data on what the polls in Nevada were showing a few days before the 2012 election?  That might be a helpful comparison.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

[TitanTiger 20,495]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nv/nevada_romney_vs_obama-1908.html

So Obama was leading or tied (in a few) in every poll from late April til Election Day.  And he had this supposed early vote lead and won the state by seven points.  But Hillary who supposedly has an even bigger early vote lead than Obama had.  But the polls there show Trump leading or tied in 4 of the last 5 polls.  You don't see reason for serious skepticism that Nevada is lost for Trump?