Skip to comments.Nevada: Obama 52%, Romney 44%
Posted on 05/02/2012 4:20:35 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
President Obama continues to lead Mitt Romney in a head-to-head matchup in Nevada.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the state finds Obama earning 52% support, while Romney picks up 44% of the vote. Two percent (2%) prefers some other candidate, and another two percent (2%) are undecided.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Somehow I doubt the GOPe TEA party bashers will give any consideration to Sharron Angle losing by less to Reid than Romny to Obama.
It would be nice in which I expect them to be in secluded regions but unfortunately they are populating across America. They are called lemmings who follow the media.
We are so freakin’ OWNED!
Who cares he will take a dive anyway.....like Juan did...
Face it, the establishment GOP has screwed the pooch just like they always do when picking “their” candidate. Why vote for a wan-a-be RAT like Mitt when you have the real thing in Obama. I personally can’t tell the difference between the two of them other than one has a lighter complexion than the other. These races are won by voter turnout and I just don’t see any passion in the GOP for this tired old RINO. Sorry, but you should prepare yourself for 4 more years of Obama.
Why are they not polling my candidate Virgil Goode???? This poll is incomplete.
this is just the TIP of the iceberg that will sink the RomTanic...
By October the MSM will have Romney looking like ole Warren Jeffords of the FLDS...
These surveys are silly. A Pelosi’s company makes the voting machines and a Soros company counts the votes on foreign soil. How is the result not obvious?
WOW! I thought with all those LDSers in NV at least Willard would take NV. The LDS church needs to send some buses from Utah to NV on election day, hee hee.
Posting #14 will explain a lot.
Nevada has long had status as a POTUS bellwether.
1976 was in fact the first time since 1908 it picked the loser.
Nevada had been close from 1992-2004 but in 2008 Osama won it by 12.5 points, his national margin was 7.27%. We gained a US house seat but 2010 also could have gone much better for the GOP there. A bad candidate can be blamed for the US Senate loss but not the failure to take back the State Senate or losses in 4 of 6 statewide offices (GOP won Governor over Reid’s clown son and the incumbent LT Governor won reelection).
It might now be a little more rat than the country at large.
That is all true, and I wasn’t counting on NV for anyone’s road to 270, but I think there’s still a chance for Romney to carry it because (i) unemployment is much higher than the nation as a whole, (iii) the real-estate bust was as bad here as anywhere in the nation and (iii) the state has a large and growing Mormon population and they may turn out en masse for Romney. But if Romney wins NC, VA, FL, OH and NH, then NV would be just gravy.
As for NV’s bellwether status, it has indeed voted for the winner in 24 of the 25 presidential elections from 1912 to 2008 (all but 1976). However, MO voted for the winner in 25 of the 26 presidential elections from 1904 to 2004, and the fact that it vited for McCain in 2008 wasn’t enough to deliver the presidency to him. And DE was the only state to go 12 for 12 from 1952 to 1996, yet it was unable to deliver the presidency either to Gore or Kerry. In other words, electoral bellwethers lead the way until they stop doing so.
The state that I think is likeliest to decide the 2012 elections, being close to a must-win for both parties, is OH. If OH does end up being decisive, it will be the 13th straight election in which it votes for the winner (and if Romney wins without carrying NV, no other state will have a streak longer than 5 elections).
Yes, Ohio has an excellent record as a bellwether. Not to mention it’s much larger than Nevada or Delaware. Missouri is now more Republican that average and Delaware much more democrat (and I fear Nevada is now becoming a little more democrat). Ohio remains a closely divided state. McCain did 1.2% better than his national showing.
Not counting Kennedy the last time it was wrong was 1944 (which was not that close of an election) when it narrowly voted for Dewey, before that 1892. No Republican has won without it (not counting 1916 when Wilson should have lost but easily won Ohio).
It’s unlikely Romney wins without it, not likely Obama does either.
It’s the same reason why the Republican primary voters are gung-ho to kick out RINOs in the Senate, but enthusiastically voted for Romney. Romney won the primaries by enacting mass mind control through the “conservative” media and negative advertising. Obama will win the general election by outdoing Romney’s media blitz on a far grander scale. Voters instinctively know which candidate they like better, but they’re too stupid to trust their own instincts when the “magic box” tells them differently.