Exposing the lack of compassion by conservatives and
debunking right wing hypocrisy at every opportunity.
MyDD :: New Nevada Poll:
The results, courtesy of KRNV in Reno:
| Total | Men | Women | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton | 32 | 28 | 36 |
| Obama | 20 | 24 | 16 |
| Edwards | 11 | 9 | 13 |
| Gore??? | 11 | 13 | 9 |
| Richardson | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Clark | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Gravel | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Kucinich | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Dodd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Biden | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Undecided | 18 | 16 | 20 |
Where do you begin, Gore? The fact that they polled more Republicans than Democrats?
That there's no indication if any of the Democrats polled are likely to go to the caucuses?
How about the idea that since only about 5% of Democrats actually go to the Nevada Caucus, and only 40% of the 600 people sampled in the poll are actually Democrats, maybe, just maybe they got ahold of 12 people in the entire State of Nevada whose opinion really matters in this thing.
Ugh.
And yes, more women than men like John Edwards -- because he's a freaking stud! Not cuz he's "cute."
Subscribe via Email
4 Comments:
Funny that Gore is polling higher than most of the Republican candidates... and he's not running.
By the way, if you're exposing hypocrisy, you better write the article about Newt Gingrich and his affair he had while he was leading the charge on getting Clinton impeached over his own "affair."
That hypocrisy wrote itself. If you can't read or hear his words and figure it out, you're hopelessly drunk on the spiked Kool Aide.
And yes, more women than men like John Edwards -- because he's a freaking stud! Not cuz he's "cute."
Even more proof that there is nothing even remotely female about Ann C*****r.
I assume they reported the useless results in order to persuade people to buy the results with the crosstabs, that would allow the results to be broken down by party.
But unless they have a "attended previous Democractic caucus" or even a "likely to attend caucus" question, even that it pretty useless.
POST A COMMENT