I was just thinking along the same lines. I don't take polls seriously that feature unannounced candidates anymore. I call those "wishful thinking" polls and they are suspect because they seem designed to take points away from Obama and Edwards in an effort to make Hillary appear untouchable.

So, ( YES ). MyDD should conduct their own polls.

Polls won't get our candidates elected. Getting people registered and voters to the polls on election day, will get our people elected.

Why not do fund raisers for GOTV campaigns, or to register un-registered voters, or for mass media campaigns to encourage people to vote.

There is only one poll that counts. The one on election day.

But I think its still early. Why not wait till say June, July to see if better polls come out?

I'd like to see a good poll, but I'll have to say no to this.

If the traditional media sees Hillary suddenly leading in Nevada (in this poll and I'm sure others to come), it will be quite a surprise when Edwards or Obama pull of an "upset" and win the Nevada caucus.  It's all about momentum.  Let's just let the media set the David and Goliath narrative.

Let's leave things as they are and hope that the anti-Hillary candidate gets a huge boost out of Nevada.

Why is this important enough to you?

As part of MyDD's goal of building progressive infrastructure, what do you hope to accomplish with a poll like this?

The previous polling was to ask questions no one else would ask - as such that information is valuable.  This poll would seem to me to just get lost in the shuffle.  

I've always thought MyDD was about creating a better Democratic Party, not just tracking how the DLC is buying the presidential race. I don't want more focus on polling when the numbers only point to electability and nobody is doing anything to change the electability tests (which is too bad because it worked well in Montana).

How about $15K for a national push to redefine electability? A decade ago, the DNC trainings didn't include "contrast" as part of message but the current DFA trainings do. This "debate" should be considered professionally settled, but the DLC is still trying to ignore the evidence much like big oil and global warming.

If you think it is too late to change the landscape, how about spending $15K in online ads in Nevada pointing out how much Hillary sucks, that is something I'd be into.

I agree with the CW that polling isn't productive.  It adds to the "horse race" without providing any tangible result.

What little money I have to donate, I plan on giving to my choice presidential candidate.

I have a few thoughts on MyDD running a poll or series of polls in Nevada as someone who is a supporter of the idea, done some leg work on it and who has actually talked with Chris about it at length (but who would also completely understand if the MyDD community thinks and decides otherwise):

1. Having good polling that actually accurately reflects the sentiments of voters is important -- particularly in Nevada, where the perhaps five percent of the population (or fewer) participating in the Democratic caucses could play an extremely large role in deciding the next Democratic presidential nominee.
   
2. Bad polling, such as the polling released today by Research 2000, muddies the water and can perpetuate incorrect stereotypes about the state of the race, thus potentially actually affecting the race.
   
3. Being the pollster (or poll sponsor) for the Nevada caucuses would almost undoubdtedly raise MyDD's profile, helping to grow the site, build readership and increase the clout of the site -- and the MyDD community.

I would like to see the Presidential race tied into Iraq, which would have a movement orientation to it.

I supported MyDD's previous polls, but this one just seems unnecessary.  There are going to be a million polls of IA, NH, SC, NV, and national polls the next year or so.  Chris, you saw how the national polls began earlier this year and how much you criticized them.  A short while later they wised up and asked better questions, got more details, didn't include people that weren't running, etc.  I think the state polls will likewise catch up with the better polling methodology.  No need for us to put money into an effort that will likely be duplicated soon.

I agree with all the reasons given for the 'no' votes above.

It doesn't seem to drive any activism, attempt to move CW (like the Iraq poll), and money can probably be better spent elsewhere.

As for Jonathan's 3 points:

1) Having accurate polling is always important, but having limited resources the site should do the most good with what it has.  This type of poll doesn't seem to do that.

2. Bad polling does muddy the race, but you have to think that there will be more (and better) polls to come.  My point to point (1) applies to this as well.  Why not petition the Nevada papers  or TV stations to pay for a SurveyUSA poll themselves?  Or co-sponser it with them so as not to have MyDD spend all the money on it?  
   
3. Maybe we can think of another poll that would do the same thing while actually adding value to the progressive movement, not just polling numbers that we'd all like to see.  Or the co-sponser idea again: we'd definitely get media attention if we co-sponser it with a media outlet.

The only way I could support it is if we also asked iraq occupation and iran war questions, and if these issues affected who the likely votes will vote for.  This could have the ability to help swing candidates to stronger anti-war stances.

I'd say there are better, more productive polls that could be run.  I've contributed to other polling efforts here, particularly the post-election Busby/Bilbray race. Now that was productive!  I passed on the White Paper to my Colorado Congressional Candidate and he wove it into his campaign and took a previous Republican seat.

I don't see a Nevada horse-race poll this far out as very useful.  It's pretty darn likely we'll see some major shake-ups in the next 6-9 months that will make the current polling and standings obsolete.

Being the pollster (or poll sponsor) for the Nevada caucuses would almost undoubdtedly raise MyDD's profile, helping to grow the site, build readership and increase the clout of the site -- and the MyDD community.

I imagine the target audience we would be increasing clout with would be the insider baseball crowd. Maybe that's what the mission and vision of MYDD is: to be an influential backroom shop in the netroots ecosystem, a gathering place for political people higher on the food chain than the broad spectrum of Kos readers, which is maybe one fine goal.

Personally, I'd rather put the money to producing some of those NPR essays and showcase talented progressive politickers and their ideas to millions of new potential community members while taking back some of the airwaves from the rightwingers, who get to dominate NPR because they are the ones who keep showing up with the essays.

So the choice you've put before us is embedded in a frame that points in one particular direction, and I think that's a damn shame because you can accomplish greater good with the same money if you took up my idea.

My two cents is no, hell no.

Nobody has any idea what the makeup of caucus voters will be in Nevada in January 2008 so polls are especially unreliable.  Polls at this time in 2003 had Lieberman & Gephardt ahead in meaningless polls that had no traction outside of the beltway, least of all in Iowa or New Hampshire.  There is no shortage of polls.  I think it would be a horrible waste of money.  The movement needs infrastructure and real grassroots outreach, not another poll.  I'd rather have you spend money to skywrite over Las Vegas to go to MyDD or Kos, at least that way some more people would be attracted to the progressive blogosphere.  

Be strategic.  The Busby race was something that was being ignored, polls made sense, there was a real point.  Why not poll in some districts that are being writrten off by the party establishment.  Nobody is going to ignore Nevada.  If you want the polls framed in a certain way, let the presidential campaigns do it and get them to tag on a question or two.  They will spend hundreds of thousands polling in Nevada.  

If a group wants to do a poll in Nevada its OK by me.  I just think it would be wasteful.

In a word, no.

Nevada will be on a Saturday, less than a full week after Iowa. I don't think it will ultimately be all that important in the narrative of the presidential contest. If we're going to poll early contests, then poll Iowa -- there's not enough polling of Iowa in general and much of it isn't very reliable. Reliable iowa caucuses polling is also very lucrative and would be easily and quickly picked up by other media outlets.

Another alternative: poll TX-SEN. Cornyn is weak, and you could spend '07 polling prospective draft candidates like Lance Armstrong, Mayor Bill White, and others, and then spend '08 polling the general. The netroots could be in a position to own the Democratic campaign from start to finish.

YES!  It's Needed!

I'm still amazed, and deeply saddened, by the failure and complete disinterest of you folks to get in touch with Nevada progressives and ask what might help rather than presume we're all yokels that need your brilliant insight.

Last year you ignored, despite repeated posting by a lot of people, what was going on in the state when progressives helped win a contested primary, fought hard for control of the party against Reid's appointed man and lost a chairmanic election by 7 votes, and couldn't be bothered to try to raise $10K to help us win a governor's race that we lost by <4% or a Congressional race we lost by <2%.

I've got an idea. Why don't you read some of the postings on the LV Gleaner or VGO about whats going on, or not going on, with the caucus.

In short, if you want to make a difference, help keep it from being an entirely closed off process.

I agree with those upthread -- why not spend money to help educate voters. For instance, subsidize Gleaner or GVO or other local blogs that are doing the only good reporting in the state -- and help Gleaner get better software to control his comments. Put some money into advertising on Nevada Today so they can pay for reporting.

Doing a poll just so you can debate it here is typical of what this site, so sadly, has become.

A final word on polling in NEvada -- there's no way you can do a good poll of this caucus using cheap push-button technology. Since there's no past history for participation, there's no way to do an effective "yes" or "no" screen. As a result, you're going to be polling "aspirational caucus-goers" (those who want to go), not necessarily those who will go. Secondly, there's very little coverage about the candidates' platforms because we have the worst local media in the world. So you're getting name ID responses mostly.

My point, Gary, though isn't only that it will be tough to poll and that Hafen should have had more support.

Its that there's a free for all going on right now within the state and county parties; the Governor is likely going to be subject to a recall; and there's a whole lot more going on that should matter to progressives than doing a poll of a presidential caucus. But someone this site, which began as a way to emphasize participation, has become a place to play at being a pundit. Its clear in the post itself; what Singer wants is not to make a difference -- its to be talked about.

My point is that if you're interested in contributing money that will make a difference in the state, save it for the recall election that will get underway in July.

Sorry, I meant Bowers, not Singer.

I got the feeling that some Nevada Democrats were less than thrilled with Netroots interference in the Fox debate. While I think it was great, the local people have a much more mixed view.

And why signle out Nevada? Why not poll Iowa or NH?

I don't think netroots moving in on the Nevada caucus is such a hot idea.

Guys,

If you do the polling, let me know if I can help. Glad to, pro bono as always. As we all know, there are major issues in sampling and respondent qualification et and cetera in a caucus poll. That stuff is key to getting solid numbers.