It is not THAT bad, for a single state, in a survey aimed at the whole country. A Pew poll with a 7% margin of error is surely more objective than the Mormons self reported number from 6 years ago, which is where I found the number nearly identical to that you cited. I would certainly be happy to have a look at your source for that figure, but since you did not state it I can only guess what it was.
http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/58714/United-States-information-Nevada.html
you can look at their church records you can do a search of other sources as well. Do you have any idea what a 7% margin of error actually means? And you think that's more objective?!
Quite honestly you must be yanking my chain.
Yes, I have a good idea of what 7% margin of error means; it means the sample size permits confidence of accuracy to no less than 7%. The LDS cited 6.5% total is well within that range.
However, the Pew figure is unquestionably more OBJECTIVE than the Mormons self-reported numbers, whether or not it is more accurate.
One obvious possible explanation of why their figure is lower is that they probably only counted enrolled membership, perhaps only that regularly attending services, while the Pew survey counts everyone who self-identifies as Mormon irrespective of their official membership or activity.
Say we use that figure though. There are about 2.7 million Nevadans, so 6.5% of them would be about 175,000. According to Huff Post, final numbers were around 32,500 total caucus voters (so turnout was, in fact, way down from '08.) We further know, based on how Mormons and non-Mormons split, that 30% of those, or just under 10,000, were Mormons, and the other 22,500 were not. Call it 23,000, since I rounded the Mormons up, too.
The means 6% of Nevadas Mormons voted in the GOP caucus, compared to <1% of the rest of the state.
Obama better HOPE general election turnout is nothing like that in the Southwest, let alone nationally, or he has no chance.
The means 6% of Nevadas Mormons voted in the GOP caucus, compared to <1% of the rest of the state.
Obama better HOPE general election turnout is nothing like that in the Southwest, let alone nationally, or he has no chance.
and why would it be? Extrapolating from a low turnout caucus to a presidential race. Hmmm.
Extrapolating from a low turnout caucus to a low turnout presidential race. Neither party is enthusiastic about its candidate, though IMHO Republicans are more enthusiastic about defeating Obama than Democrats are about defeating Romney. Most Democrats seem to feel Romney more embarrassing than threatening.
Small sampe>no sample. Give me some other 2012 NV election numbers and I will be happy to review them.
The problem is your reasoning is flawed. Sample vs no sample is a ridiculous thing to say when your technique is actually invalid.
Mind you rather than rehashing the same old ground I'm leaving this particular conversation. No matter what I say you wont see sense. No matter what any expert says, you wont see sense.
What "expert" would that be? The one who quoted 2008 caucus turnout as 2012 turnout? What "experts" claim the Mormon vote does not have a large impact on NV elections? Every knowledgeable source I have seen comment on that says just the opposite.
Unless other voters greatly outnumber Republicans (an odd contention when arguing NV is a swing state) the caucus effect will only diminish, not disappear, in the general election. It may only be about half what it was in the GOP-only caucus, but, based on the energetic 2008 caucus' 25% Mormon turnout, that would be about 12.5% (based on this years low turnout caucus it would be 15%.) If Obama had not won NV by such a big margin (12%) in 2008 this would not even be worth debating, but even so, 1) Obama was much more popular then and 2) the GOP nominee was not Mormon.
Unless you can cite an "expert" with evidence Democratic turnout will be as energetic as 2008 (or anything but lethargic) I will continue believing high Mormon enthusiasm for Romney will be an insurmountable problem for Obama in AZ, NV and probably even CO (though the biggest problem in the last is that no one outside metro Denver can stand Obama.) You may continue believing you know more about my countrys politics than I, but our respective records do not support that belief. A week ago I said Romney would come out of Super Tuesday with "close to 300 more delegates," which is about 68.5% of the total; the WSJ says he actually won 63% of delegates they project (51 are still unprojected, 19 in states Romney won, but most will eventually be his.) I stand, as always, on my record.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President!
29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM
- 1261 Views
I agree Romney will be the candidate.
29/02/2012 08:54:52 PM
- 655 Views
I would say the math favors Romney over Obama, but it will probably be close either way.
01/03/2012 03:37:52 PM
- 701 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College.
29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM
- 702 Views
You don't think like a politician then
01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM
- 744 Views
I certainly hadn't considered much of that. I'm glad you posted it. *NM*
01/03/2012 07:15:03 AM
- 314 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate.
01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM
- 630 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM
- 672 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus
03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM
- 689 Views
I have a couple quibbles.
03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM
- 716 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded
03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM
- 676 Views
What a bunch of waffle!
03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM
- 820 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters
03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM
- 833 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM
- 633 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM
- 670 Views
*is learning*
04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM
- 662 Views
Re: *is learning*
04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM
- 675 Views
Re: *is learning*
05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM
- 716 Views
You could imitate the French.
07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM
- 649 Views
That seems... unlikely....
08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM
- 650 Views
It does, doesn't it?
08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM
- 847 Views
After I thought about it more, I realized France and the US are not so different in that respect.
08/03/2012 08:51:03 PM
- 625 Views
More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed.
08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM
- 604 Views
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet.
09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM
- 683 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong.
03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM
- 689 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please?
03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM
- 566 Views
Sure.
03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM
- 740 Views
Guess we did not read far enough.
03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM
- 683 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM
- 887 Views
Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!
04/03/2012 11:46:57 PM
- 906 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM
- 683 Views
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest
05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM
- 631 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM
- 634 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited.
02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM
- 784 Views
Most states are ignored anyway
02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM
- 860 Views
Only because and to the extent they have already committed themselves.
03/03/2012 03:41:39 AM
- 709 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM*
05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM
- 373 Views
I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore?
01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM
- 624 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM*
02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM
- 448 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other.
02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM
- 605 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM
- 603 Views
Well, you know my story there; I voted for Obama and got Hillary (at best.)
03/03/2012 01:43:20 AM
- 617 Views
Update: Despite rules requiring they be split, the MI GOP is giving Romney BOTH statewide delegates.
02/03/2012 11:10:56 PM
- 704 Views
Romney is damaged
02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM
- 619 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again.
03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM
- 724 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter
03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM
- 606 Views
You should put that on your license plates.
03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM
- 728 Views
And what are you basing all of this on?
03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM
- 719 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors.
03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM
- 673 Views
Wrong
04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM
- 790 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect.
04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM
- 829 Views
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you
05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM
- 735 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact.
07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM
- 571 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all?
07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM
- 735 Views
I hate this message board
07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM
- 530 Views
It would probably help if you deleted the stuff from two, three posts back?
07/03/2012 09:25:40 PM
- 645 Views
Some, though it is far from exhaustive.
08/03/2012 02:29:06 PM
- 712 Views