Obama leads in Nevada, CNN/Time poll says

By Jon Ralston · October 1, 2008 · 1:12 PM

Related files

Read poll results

Obama up 4 in likely voters, 11 in registered voters. Also picking up ground in other battleground states, poll this week, taken while Obama was here, finds. Read results at right.

Discussion: 22 comments so far...

By soon_to_be_President_Obama

10/1/08 at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

I guess you can have your cake and eat it too!
By That_Anonymous_Guy

10/1/08 at 1:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

I was wondering how long it would take the national polling wave to finally reach Nevada:

McClatchy: Obama +4
Associated Press: Obama +7
Time: Obama +7
Gallup tracking: Obama +4
Rasmussen: Obama +6
Pew: Obama +6

And even the most Republican-tilting poll (Battleground) shows Obama +2.

Meanwhile North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Florida and Ohio have all become too close to call.
By revtomperl

10/1/08 at 2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

some say most states are mostly Obama - it appears that the election has always been Obama's to win or lose in this era of low approval for both the Prez and da Congressionals.
By bluedem

10/1/08 at 4:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Frankly, I think McCain lost the election one Sarah Palin was exposed as woefully inept and unqualified. This clearly demonstrated that McCain makes very poor choices and should not be entrusted with the Presidency.
By jfnance32

10/1/08 at 4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

The Democrats made poor choice in Obama who is woefully inept and unqualified and should not be entrusted with the Presidency.

They choose the weaker candidate who only has 3 years of part-time senate experience and 7 years of state senator experience.

18 million Democrats made a good choice and 18 million Democrats made a dumb choice.
By avatar

10/1/08 at 7:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

This will all get sorted out on November 4th. We the people have had more than enough time to decide which candidate is best suited to be our President.

Bush was elected in 2004 with a margin of 2.4% of over 121 million U.S. voters.

The 62 million that voted for Bush/Cheney made a poor choice.
The 59 million that voted for Kerry/Edwards made a good choice.

Bush earned 418,690 votes in Nevada while Kerry earned 397,190 votes.
(21,000 votes or approximately 2.5%)

In November, Obama will earn about 450,000 votes while McSpend will earn about 350,000.

A decisive win for Obama in the Silver State.
By mikeg

10/1/08 at 8:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

No McCain will take this state. There are too many retired conservative voters here for Obama to win it.
By 2zero

10/1/08 at 9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

If McCain would announce he would make Gibbons the Sec. of Defense and get him the hill out of Nevada then I would vote for McCain.

Think about it, McCain picked Palin for VP so it is possible.
By avatar

10/1/08 at 10:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

mikeg

Now that all of the retired conservative voters have looked at their 401k's during the past week they are now 2-1 in favor of Obama.

Clinton was elected because Bush senior didn't care about the economy and Obama will be elected for the same reason.

It's the economy stupid! McSpend is so rich, he is insulated from the fallout!
By jfnance32

10/1/08 at 11:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Barack 'sub-prime' Obama is number two recipient of cash from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac crooked organizations.

The Democrats has been pushing for decades for more and more and more and more sub-prime loans so that minorities can get into houses.

Now we all are paying the price of such foolishness.

Over 1/3 of foreclosures are tied to illegal aliens.

Yes, it is economy stupid and the Democrats have given us a hugh bill to pay up on.

Thank you Democrats for pushing the sub-prime market so much.

I hope you are happy that so many minorities got into homes that are now being foreclosed on.
By PatriciaLV

10/2/08 at 4:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jim, I've asked you this before but maybe this time you'll answer.

Does it hurt to twist & spin as much as you have to in order to make "facts" fit your reality?
By annienonymouse

10/2/08 at 6 a.m.

Suggest removal

Patricia, the longer version of Jim's ranting is at the RJ site. Just ignore him.
By Gordon

10/2/08 at 7:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nance: I know pesky things like 'truth' and 'facts' get in the way of your neocon rants.

Why did subprime explode during 2003 when Republicans controlled government? See chart here http://bigpicture.typepad.com/.shared/im...

I know you know this information, why do you continue to spam the boards with your lies?

The era of neocons is coming to an end thanks to the internet and easily accessible fact checking. The only ones voting neocon are those that rely solely on newspapers, TV news or those unable to see reality.
By jfnance32

10/2/08 at 7:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

You chart shows a higher percentage jump in 2003 which makes sense because that is when interest rates started to jump.

More people became unqualified for normal loans and more qualified for sub-prime.

So you can stick that fact into brain and crank it.

For years the Democrats having been pushing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and regular banks to do more and more and more and more sub-prime loans so that minorities can get into house.

Now all Americans are paying a big price for that foolishness.

Here is an article praising Clinton on busting open the sub-prime market for minorities to own homes. It was written in 1999 with this scary prediction: "argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers."

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/...

As of Feb 2008, Democrats were still trying to increase the sub-prime market:
"Democrats sought to expand the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in affordable housing and the subprime market on Thursday as a proposed increase in the companies' conforming loan limit ignited some protest from Republicans."

Below is part of McCain's speech in 2005 on the Senate floor. Too bad, they did not listen to him.

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market."

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
By Gordon

10/2/08 at 7:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nance: You have been 'proved wrong' on every one of your points many times. Rather than re-posting, new readers read the same comments and responses here http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep...

Nance is getting much more desperate since the polling shows McCain dropping fast in the polls.
By scorpiogal

10/2/08 at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Nance. The original kool-aid kid. That smell,as Ralston says,IS desperation.
By jfnance32

10/2/08 at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

You guys respond with goofy attacks that have no substance.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/...

In this article it is praising Clinton for busting the door open on sub-prime loans so that minorities can get a house.

Clinton and the Democrats deserve the credit for busting open the sub-prime market that we all are now paying for.
By Tim_Walker

10/2/08 at 10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think Obama truly represents the face of America, and he will be the President that unites this divided country.
By redferret

10/2/08 at 11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Gotta love the Republican blame game of the 21st century. Basically they blame democrats, Bill Clinton's presidency, minorities, and the poor for not spending enough. Get over it. Gordon posted cited sources that explain why the phrase Bill Clinton made the sub prime mess a total load.
By redferret

10/2/08 at 11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Besides, Clinton's been out of office for almost 8 years now. This subprime mess happened on Bush's watch, it percolated up during his watch, and any attempt to completely cast this as a Clinton problem is an ostrich like knee jerk response. OMG!!! there's a problem. Well not like it's the current president's problem (plomp, head in the sand.)
By jfnance32

10/2/08 at 3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Bush and McCain wanted more laws to put the brakes on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but the Democrats fought that tooth and nail....They wanted more and more and more and more and more and more sub-prime loans to poor minorities so that they can have houses.

Now we all are paying the price for that social engineering.

Over 1/3 of foreclosures are to illegal immigrants.

Democrats love those sub-prime loans.

No wonder....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were feeding Democrats tons of cash......

Mr Barack 'sub-prime' Obama is number two on the list of getting cash from those entities and he only has been in the senate for 3 years....LOL
By avatar

10/2/08 at 7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nance-
Fannie Mae and Freddie spent huge amounts of money on the entire Congressional body! Obama was on the list just like McCain and everyone else.

McCains campaign manager was being paid $30,000 per month for 5 years to lobby for Fannie and Freddie. Yes, to lobby for protection against Congress and to support sub-prime loans.

McCain's manager pocketed 1.8 million dollars while Obama was given thousands?

If your name was Newton, you couldn't even find the apple falling from the tree.