Harry Reid 42% (D)
Sue Lowden 35% (R)
Scott Ashjian 3% (T)
Tim Fasano 5% (IAP)
None of these 8%
Harry Reid 37% (D)
Danny Tarkanian 37% (R)
Scott Ashjian 2% (T)
Tim Fasano 7% (IAP)
None of these 4%
Jon Ralston "flashed" these numbers to his private email subscribers early this week, and now Ralston is making the numbers public. Yes, it's Democratic internal polling, however it's from Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin and Metz, a very reputable firm that regularly is hired to do Presidential polling. That's nothing to lightly dismiss!
All in all, it confirms what we were starting to see with the DKos/Research 2000 poll released late last month: This race has changed dramatically in just a month. Suzy Lowdown's friends at The R-J were ready to crown her as the winner weeks before June and months before November, but her own hot mess of a campaign has proven that it ain't actually over until folks start voting.
So obviously Suzy Lowdown must be finally realizing that she's in trouble, which is why she finally released a new ad:
Steve Sebelius likes it, but I think I'll have to go with Ralston on this one.
I guess I'll have to give her props for her dramatic use of her props, but the message itself is confusing and can potentially backfire. Brian Fadie explains at ProgressNow:
If one of your campaign's big dirty secrets is the fact that you financially supported your opponent multiple times in the past, you might not want to bring that up in your ad to remind everyone about it.
Note the screen on the TV on the left in the ad "Lowden: I supported Harry Reid"
Then you might not want to display just how much you supported him (which was kind of a lot):
Per the same screen: "Lowden gave Harry Reid's campaign a thousand dollars."
And you really probably don't want people to know how many times you did that:
I'm no campaign guru, but if you don't want people to know about something you probably shouldn't be the one to bring it up.
If I wasn't aware of any of these negative things being said about her before seeing this ad, I sure as hell would be curious about them after. And in the wonderful days of the internet it only takes me about 10 seconds to bypass the messaging in your big buck (pun!) ad buy and find out the whole story.
He's right. Does Ms. Suzy really think it helps to pay to air more of Baby Tark's attacks on her? AND remind everyone yet again about "Chickens for Checkups"? I guess she's still not really thinking things through.
And right now, I suspect someone in Searchlight is smiling. Yep, it's all coming together now... ;-)