tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post6721955646982579796..comments2024-03-26T14:01:36.240-05:00Comments on Public Policy Polling: Nevada MiscellaneousTom Jensenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06545052616714485196noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-67559982764183199122011-08-10T00:40:33.577-05:002011-08-10T00:40:33.577-05:00Too bad you didn't ask about sports teams pref...Too bad you didn't ask about sports teams preferences. That's often my favorite part of your poll, and Nevada is such an enigma regarding pro sports (who <i>do</i> they root for?).Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15414322170354143550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-74613580686913111182011-08-09T19:39:31.162-05:002011-08-09T19:39:31.162-05:00I'm suspicious about the VP question's rel...I'm suspicious about the VP question's reliability. It strikes me as implausible that a ticket adding a fairly popular homestate politician would cause it to <i>lose</i> support in that state. Now, you could make an argument that the politician's "abandoment" might cause the ticket to lose support. But that doesn't seem to jive with recent history, where VP candidates seem mostly to have a (usually small) positive effect on their home state. <br /><br />My guess is that most of the "more likelies" and "less likelies" are partisan voters who weren't going to change their vote anywhere. However, some of the "no difference" are probably low information voters who don't think they'll be influenced on such a "trivial" issue, but probably will in the end. For instance, I bet you'd get overwhelming "no difference" for "Would you be more likely to vote for the taller candidate?" despite there being evidence that taller candidates do better.Henryhttp://danieltarmac.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-82040884863252321312011-08-09T17:55:20.244-05:002011-08-09T17:55:20.244-05:00The key difference for Sandoval is that unlike the...The key difference for Sandoval is that unlike the Midwestern governors of 2010, he didn't come into office with a raving horde of radical right-wing Republicans in control of the state legislature. He doesn't get his face on a giant stack of unthinking cuts to state government and doesn't make himself the Nevada poster child for union-busting, because any proposals to that effect never reach his desk.<br /><br />It's the states where Republicans have taken full control that voters are discovering how utterly revolting Republican policies are, because those policies are making it into law. Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine and New Hampshire are all experiencing severe cases of buyers' remorse (or to be more accurate,cases of "I would've voted last year if I'd thought it would be THIS bad"). In all those cases, Republicans either control everything, or have a large enough majority in the state legislature to override vetoes, and in all those states the new Republican leadership is profoundly unpopular thanks to their radical agenda and complete disregard for precedent.<br /><br />Ironically, they may very well have made themselves unpopular enough to ensure that they get replaced in the very next round of elections, and everything they've done gets reversed immediately. If they'd taken more time and pushed their agenda out more slowly and made some pretense of thinking about it, they might not have engendered such intense opposition and been able to make some of it stick. As it is, though, most of those states look likely to swing Democratic in the next round.NRHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12565160695480579309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2799451770086337664.post-28861048732683344262011-08-09T17:23:20.211-05:002011-08-09T17:23:20.211-05:00I still believe the Union helped to get Reid elect...I still believe the Union helped to get Reid elected. No one in their right mind would want him in his position causing trouble for the entire country the way he does.Elainenoreply@blogger.com