how about nevada?
i know i'm cherry-picking, but the only poll here without an obvious bias (and it doesn't help to verify the results if the polling is all funded by partisan actors) is this one:
Sanders 35%
Warren 16%
Buttigieg 15%
Biden 14%
Steyer 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Gabbard 2%
...and it's also the one that aligns best with the non-literal, intuitive regression model that i erected in my head (stated differently, this is the one that best reflects the direction of the trendlines).
those numbers are a little better for buttigieg, but it's still not clear that he'll end up viable, and i'm not ready to project that he will.
they're very good for sanders, though, who, once again, could nearly take the pot by splitting the field, if that was the actual outcome.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/nevada/
i know i'm cherry-picking, but the only poll here without an obvious bias (and it doesn't help to verify the results if the polling is all funded by partisan actors) is this one:
Sanders 35%
Warren 16%
Buttigieg 15%
Biden 14%
Steyer 10%
Klobuchar 9%
Gabbard 2%
...and it's also the one that aligns best with the non-literal, intuitive regression model that i erected in my head (stated differently, this is the one that best reflects the direction of the trendlines).
those numbers are a little better for buttigieg, but it's still not clear that he'll end up viable, and i'm not ready to project that he will.
they're very good for sanders, though, who, once again, could nearly take the pot by splitting the field, if that was the actual outcome.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-d/nevada/