Poll shows Nevadans not thrilled with web gaming or the margin tax, split over Bundy

Nevada voters do not support web gaming, don't like the idea of taxing business and are divided over the BLM's handling of the Cliven Bundy affair, a new survey says.

The poll was conducted this week for Las Vegas Sands by Chris Wilson of 500 likely voters (margin of error is 4.4 percent). I've seen the poll; there are no questions designed to skew the results. But my guess is some may discount the results because the company, chaired by Sheldon Adelson, is against online gaming. It's real, though.

When asked if they support or oppose online gaming, 50 percent of voters said they are against it and only 37 percent said they back it. (This becomes 28-62 once voters are pushed with various arguments against web gaming, although these "on paper" campaigns don't always translate to reality.) What's more 46 percent want the state law repealed while 36 percent would oppose that. But Nevadans are evenly divided, 45-43, on support for a federal ban.

Here's an interesting one: Nevadans are split, 32-29, over whether to support a lawmaker who backs repealing online gaming. Adelson wouldn't make this an issue in legislative races, would he?

On the margin tax, I don't like the question that much because it is called a "corporate income tax," which it is not (it's on gross), but people are not happy about that idea: It's 46-26 against.

Here's that question: As you may know, a ballot initiative in Nevada has been discussed that would create the corporate income tax, otherwise known as the margins tax. Do you support or oppose creating the margins tax? 

This is all about the campaigns anyhow. No one is paying much attention yet.

By contrast, a state lottery is still beloved: 67-25

Lottery vs. margin tax to pay for education: 60-14

Also, Nevadans by a large margin back an intermediate appellate court: 47-20

And a Bundy question shows a split, too:

 I am going to read you two points of view about the way in which the Bureau of Land Management handled the situation with Cliven Bundy’s grazing fees, and please tell me which one you agree with more...

(Some/Other) people say that... the Bureau of Land Management was too heavy handed in its approach to resolving the issue of Cliven Bundy not paying enough in grazing fees. They did not have to resort to violence for a case that is a civil matter.


(Some/Other) people say that... the Bureau of Land Management had no choice but to act in a forceful manner because Cliven Bundy was threatening to use violence against them. They were just enforcing the law on grazing fees that he had been violation of for twenty years.

  1. BLM too heavy handed in its approach 43%

  2. Neither 5%

  3. Both 5%

  4. DK/Refused 8%

  5. BLM had to act forcefully to enforce the law 39%