When you dig into the results, it looks like Obama has a hell of a lot better chance of carrying Nevada than Hillary. Not that I think winning Nevada is a reason to vote for any one candidate over another, but the attitudes you see about Hillary in the Nevada poll are prevelant throughout rural areas and in largely rural states.

My point here is that if Hillary's the candidate of your heart, or of your heart and your head, go with it. However, if you actually prefer another candidate but plan to vote for Hillary because you think she's the "most electable," I'd implore you to think again.

Whenever Democratic primary voters try to vote on the basis of who they think is most electable in the general, they f**k up massively. Democratic primary voters often seem to have this condescending view of independents and rural voters that they're too dumb or too ill-informed or just too different to support the candidate the Democrat actually prefers. So, instead, we end up with a Mondale or a Dukakis or, bless his heart (as we say in the South when we're about to dis someone), a Kerry.

On the other hand, on the one occaision when we just went with the guy we like the best, we won, albeit with an assist from Ross Perot. And yeah, I liked Bill, charming devil that he his, a lot in '92 but Hillary is no Bill. An awful lot of people in our party are voting for her solely because they've bought into the idea that her campaign is this mighty machine that will just roll over the Republicans like the Germans over the French.

The poll also found that 54% of Nevadans would not vote for Hillary and Rasmussen found similarly severe unpopularity for her in Arizona and Colorado. It's polls like this that remind us that the Democratic Party is no shoe-in for 2008. They've already failed as a congressional majority and that, I believe, will help drag them down in 2008.

This confirms my view that the Clinton brand won't sell well in the West outside of California. She has a better chance of winning Florida and Missouri than Nevada and Colorado.

I think it's due to a lingering unpopularity of Bill Clinton's policies in the West from the 1990s. And much of the Mountain West is very libertarian on economic issues, which helps the GOP in presidential election years.

Hey, totally fair question DCS.

I was talking about the breakout of the would/would not vote for numbers.

Clinton
Democrats 82% 18%
Republicans 10% 90%
Independents 42% 58%
Men 34% 66%
Women 58% 42%

Obama
Democrats 81% 19%
Republicans 26% 74%
Independents 53% 47%
Men 49% 51%
Women 59% 41%

Do I believe any Democrat can pick up Nevada? No, or at least its unlikely in the extreme. The Republican to Democrat ratio there is just too high for Obama's relatively greater acceptability to make much difference. I'm just saying that these numbers are reflective of the general antipathy of non-Democratic rural and western voters for Hillary. Mostly, I think they dislike her for all the wrong reasons (i.e. Rush's reasons instead of mine), but that makes it worse for us, not better.

DOn't put too much faith in the Mason-Dixon poll. They have historically fudged for Rrepublicans.

Having lived in Nevada most of my life, I can tell you now that Giuliani will carry the state. The fact that he married his cousin is just far too appealing to the yokels here.