Rand Paul's choice of Prez-Team Pollster....

[freedombecki]

I have absolutely not doubt at all that Sen. Rand Paul (R - Tea - KY) is running for President in 2016:

Rand Paul building national network, courting mainstream support for presidential bid - The Washington Post

So far, so good.


But THIS caught my eye:


Who is Fritz Wenzel?

Wenzel owns a polling company out of Ohio, called WENZEL STRATEGIES.

Here is their logo:

His son, PJ Wenzel, is the VP of the firm.

Wenzel is best known for putting out a lot of polling for the World News Daily / Birther networks. Frankly, that part of it I don't care about, but I do want to show you Wenzel's actual track record. This may shock some.

In 2012, Wenzel put out end-polls for Presidential AND Senatorial matchups in 3 key battleground states:

Ohio
Wisconsin
Missouri


Let's look at the last Wenzel polls and compare them to the actual results.

Missouri (actual results in parenthesis)

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/missouri_poll_topline_summary_report_10-14-2012.html

Romney: 54.9 (53.64)
Obama: 41.1 (44.28)
Margin: Romney +13.8 (+9.36)

Wenzel was off 4.44 points to the Right in the Missouri Presidential election of 2012.

McCaskill (D) 48.9 (54.81)
Akin (R): 44.7 (39.11)
Margin: McCaskill +4.2 (+15.70)

Wenzel was off 11.50 points to the Right in the Missouri Senatorial election of 2012.

That poll was taken AFTER the now famous rape comments issued by then-candidate Akin.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wenzel - Ohio:

Romney: 49 (47.60)
Obama 46 (50.58)
Margin: Romney +3 (Obama +2.97, or +3)

Wenzel was off 5.97 points to the Right in the Ohio Presidential election of 2012.

Ohio Senatorial:

Mandel (R): 50 (44.70)
Brown (D): 45 (50.70)
Margin: Mandel +5 (Brown +6)

Wenzel was off 11.00 points to the Right in the Ohio Senatorial election of 2012.


Just to remind, Ohio is Wenzel's HOME STATE. Wenzel was the only END pollster to completely miscall the state. Rasmussen went from Romney +2 on 10/29/2012 to a pure tie on 11/05/2012.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wisconsin, presidential:


Obama (D): 49 (52.83)
Romney (R):47 (45.89)
Margin: Obama +2 (+6.94, or +7)

Wenzel was off 4.94, or 5 points to the Right in the Wisconsin presidential election of 2012.


Wisconsin Senatorial:

Thompson (R): 47 (45.86)
Baldwin (D): 45 (51.41)
Margin: Thompson +2 (Baldwin +5.55)

Wenzel was off 7.55 points to the Right in the Wisconsin Senatorial election of 2012.


So, in three final polls, polling 6 races total, Wenzel completely miscalled 3 of those races (OH- Pres, OH- Sen, WI- Sen,) and was between 4.44 - 11.50 points TO THE RIGHT in polling. That makes an average of 7.56 point to the RIGHT.

Wenzel was most consistently off in Senatorial polling: it was off by 11.50 in Missouri, 11.00 in Ohio and 7.55 in Wisconsin.

It was somewhat less off in the presidential polling, but 4.44 is still outside the standard MoE of +/-3.5.

In my final analysis of all End pollsters, Wenzel just got a couple of passing notices from me:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

I concentrated the analysis on pollsters with established reputations, which Wenzel does not have. Before anyone should decide to criticize that, you might want to know that RCP (Real Clear Politics) refused to even include Wenzel polls in it's calculations. Go take a look at Ohio and Missouri, for example:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio Senate - Mandel vs. Brown

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Missouri Senate - Akin vs. McCaskill


You also won't find Wenzel in the RCP presidential polling composites, either:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Missouri: Romney vs. Obama


So, actually, I gave Wenzel more the time of day in 2012 than RCP did.



Wenzel has done a GREAT amount of polling for WND. In 2009, it was already putting out polling questioning the President's eligibility (the birther issue):

Shocker! Most Americans know of Obama eligibility questions

Just 51% of Americans believe Obama eligible

Wenzel also insinuated that President Obama should be impeached over Benghazi:

Answer to Benghazi obfuscation? Impeachment

(no other pollster anywhere was showing these kinds of numbers)

Wenzel even put out a poll claiming that Sarah Palin (R) could make a serious primary challenge to President Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries of 2012:

Poll: Palin would stir up even Democratic primary



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FACIT: As I wrote at the top, I really don't care all that much for some of the crazy, out of the box "polling" that Wenzel has done. What does interest me is Wenzel's mathematical track record, which is abysmal. And if you go to Wenzel's website, you will notice that they don't have a poll-vault, where you can see their former results. You can pretty much take any Wenzel poll result, if it is an election poll, and shift the margin about 6 points to the LEFT, and there you will likely be closer to the truth. That is just plain old sad.


I want to make it clear again: I am not attacking Wenzel because it is right-wing oriented. I am attacking Wenzel because it's track record is absolutely atrocious. Were I a Democratic candidate for a big office and looking for a pollster, I would never take a DEM pollster with a record like that. Never. Ever.

I fail to understand why Rand Paul, who is trying to win the middle and establish a broad coalition and although his politics are not my politics - is a smart guy, would use the services of a pollster with this bad a track record. THAT is the point of the OP.

If that unfortunate, nagging suspicion that is aching the nation's belly about union omuerta swinging elections unfairly due to access to correct polling data, Wenzel may have been doing bullseyes, and the gooney birds of the union were laughing their lying butts off all the way to the WH with nothing in their way with regard to popcorn polls afterward (now illegal) and nobody paying attention to who voted and how many times (now legal), so as careful as your stats are Stats, IMHO, the jury is out with Wenzel's accuracy.

As to Rand Paul, if I had confidence that he could manage a balance between the true needs of the poor and a respect for businesses to engage in successful world competition for trade, I'd like him. Unfortunately, I haven't seen proof of that either. Also, I don't think Rand Paul understands the necessity this nation has for national security if we are to brave it out in the world as it is. I've seen him have no inkling into the need for confidentiality in security matters, and it worries the living pie out of me.

I wanta conservative President who also has a heart along with love and goodness toward ALL Americans, and I do mean there's a dearth of that in this country to keep it united at this point.

Extremists are worrisome people, and just like Barry Goldwater, the American people worry about people who can be vapid when it comes to balancing carefully the needs of the poor and the needs of the jobs market to employ the poor so they can take care of themselves, while still giving a helping hand to those who need one and complete and total loyalty to the Veterans of this nation who gave all they had to keep our nation free and a good place to live.

I'd like to see military people more active in government. Eisenhower was a dynamo who won honors for America in Europe, then came home, employed a nation, educated veterans and minorities, and pushed and got passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and got America international respect too.

Now, all we have is a slugfest in Washington, and the good old days seem long gone. Just sayin'...

@freedombecki

Actually, no, it's not, and I have already proven it in exquisite detail, extremely exquisite detail, becki:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


I think you really need to read the entire blog article, all of it, and look at the tables.

There were well over 1,900 presidential election polls. The national polls were a mess, but the composite of the state to state polls showed a very clear picture, which lead me to this prediction one day before election day in 2013:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Bonncaruso's FINAL Electoral Landscape (No.8): Obama 303 / Romney 235


There were 117 polls of Ohio, for instance. Wenzel was the only one of the final 19 end-polls to show a Romney lead. The average of those polls?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=70

Obama +3.24.

Narrow the window to just polls from the last two days, and the average was:

Obama +3.16.

Actual result:

Obama +2.97.

Variance: 0.19%. Statistically, that is nothing. The composite polling was RIGHT. Wenzel was the outlier.

In order for your scenario to work, this would mean that 18 other pollsters (remember, there were 19 end polls), 18 completely independent-from-each-other pollsters, including Rasmussen (a very right leaning pollster) and including pulse (a Ras subsidiary, used by a Tea Party group for polling) would all have had to be in collusion with each other to make false numbers.

I am sorry, Becki, that is not how it works.


And on the national front, the best pollster of 2012?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Q0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=1

Democracy Corps (D) which predicted Obama +4 (actually, the .pdf says +3.8), which is just 0.14% over his actual margin.

Also, the argument you made, which actually has nothing to do with Rand Paul at all, is that somehow, Unions stole the election. But Unions are also a part of our society and just like the Tea Party, they also have a right to exert influence and sway people, just as the Tea Party did. You do realize this, right?

So, no, the jury is not out on Wenzel. Wenzel's numbers were absolute shit in 2012. If I as a pollster were to be off by almost 12 points in a Senatorial election, seeing clearly that my polling was not even in the ballpark to that of others, I would want to go out of business.

There is no defending Wenzel. But that is not the jist of the OP.

The jist of the OP is why Rand Paul has picked such a pollster, one with such a mathematically provable bad record, to do his polling, especially when Rand Paul is trying to win the middle.

Please don't tell me that you belong to a group of people who honestly think that Obama and the Democrats stole the 2012 election? Please, please don't go there.

The rest of your posting I found to be worth gold, btw. Outstanding.


Glad you stopped by. Hope you are feeling better!

-Stat

I know numbers mean a lot to you, Stat, and I appreciate that the "numbers" prove you correct as far as numbers go.

Omeurta is the loophole around the truth, and in this world in recent years, I saw claims that 99% of scientists went along with/ agreed with/ and believed there was truth with/ AGW. Suspicious investigative scientific claims computer nerds tracked emails and found that the chief cook and bottlewasher for AGW was telling other scientists to omit data from their bases so he could prove AGW had a basis in fact, and everyone would benefit with generous government/private science endowments/and philanthropists' megabuck support. Oh, how popular it was, and oh, how the public was duped, and how nice the plums from the unwitting promotional sponsors were.

All they had to do was practice omuerta, but emails do not allow the privilege of omuerta.

Is AGW true or false? The other grand omission was the levels of CO2. Never mind the debates that soar above me, I'm getting more and more skeptical of union-sponsored and wealth-redistribution sponsors on account of this and other Omeurta power and money grabs.

I'm sticking to my skepticism if not out-and-out sardonic outlook on the voting polls that produce these errors of omission and perpetuate them following public exposure, relying on the fact that voters are also workers, and they are busy as they can be trying to raise families in as much comfort and social improvement as possible.

I'm convinced that earthly do-good-ism works when it is so impossible to expose the omuerta that I know goes on behind closed doors. I should. I belonged to a moderately-dishonest union (not extreme by any means) for a year, having been threatened with harassment if I did not join the union. The first meeting I attended included 4 young women, separated from everybody else to hear it about wearing miniskirts higher than the 4-inch above-knee miniskirts allowed by management.

I felt it was a ploy by dirty old men to nab and grab errant middle management men on pernicious charges for being human, and it made me madder than a little red hatter to promote women using their bodies to corrupt men at the behest of a union that threatened my ability to support my children who needed my support. It went against my belief system that God is good and men should try to follow in Christ's footsteps, no matter what the cost is. I believe that trying to make somebody else make mistakes is bad and that people should live in a state of mercy, love, and humility with regard not only to God, but with fellow man as well. That's the path I picked with my freedom.

 

[freedombecki]

I have absolutely not doubt at all that Sen. Rand Paul (R - Tea - KY) is running for President in 2016:

Rand Paul building national network, courting mainstream support for presidential bid - The Washington Post

So far, so good.


But THIS caught my eye:


Who is Fritz Wenzel?

Wenzel owns a polling company out of Ohio, called WENZEL STRATEGIES.

Here is their logo:

His son, PJ Wenzel, is the VP of the firm.

Wenzel is best known for putting out a lot of polling for the World News Daily / Birther networks. Frankly, that part of it I don't care about, but I do want to show you Wenzel's actual track record. This may shock some.

In 2012, Wenzel put out end-polls for Presidential AND Senatorial matchups in 3 key battleground states:

Ohio
Wisconsin
Missouri


Let's look at the last Wenzel polls and compare them to the actual results.

Missouri (actual results in parenthesis)

http://images.politico.com/global/2012/10/missouri_poll_topline_summary_report_10-14-2012.html

Romney: 54.9 (53.64)
Obama: 41.1 (44.28)
Margin: Romney +13.8 (+9.36)

Wenzel was off 4.44 points to the Right in the Missouri Presidential election of 2012.

McCaskill (D) 48.9 (54.81)
Akin (R): 44.7 (39.11)
Margin: McCaskill +4.2 (+15.70)

Wenzel was off 11.50 points to the Right in the Missouri Senatorial election of 2012.

That poll was taken AFTER the now famous rape comments issued by then-candidate Akin.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wenzel - Ohio:

Romney: 49 (47.60)
Obama 46 (50.58)
Margin: Romney +3 (Obama +2.97, or +3)

Wenzel was off 5.97 points to the Right in the Ohio Presidential election of 2012.

Ohio Senatorial:

Mandel (R): 50 (44.70)
Brown (D): 45 (50.70)
Margin: Mandel +5 (Brown +6)

Wenzel was off 11.00 points to the Right in the Ohio Senatorial election of 2012.


Just to remind, Ohio is Wenzel's HOME STATE. Wenzel was the only END pollster to completely miscall the state. Rasmussen went from Romney +2 on 10/29/2012 to a pure tie on 11/05/2012.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wisconsin, presidential:


Obama (D): 49 (52.83)
Romney (R):47 (45.89)
Margin: Obama +2 (+6.94, or +7)

Wenzel was off 4.94, or 5 points to the Right in the Wisconsin presidential election of 2012.


Wisconsin Senatorial:

Thompson (R): 47 (45.86)
Baldwin (D): 45 (51.41)
Margin: Thompson +2 (Baldwin +5.55)

Wenzel was off 7.55 points to the Right in the Wisconsin Senatorial election of 2012.


So, in three final polls, polling 6 races total, Wenzel completely miscalled 3 of those races (OH- Pres, OH- Sen, WI- Sen,) and was between 4.44 - 11.50 points TO THE RIGHT in polling. That makes an average of 7.56 point to the RIGHT.

Wenzel was most consistently off in Senatorial polling: it was off by 11.50 in Missouri, 11.00 in Ohio and 7.55 in Wisconsin.

It was somewhat less off in the presidential polling, but 4.44 is still outside the standard MoE of +/-3.5.

In my final analysis of all End pollsters, Wenzel just got a couple of passing notices from me:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?

I concentrated the analysis on pollsters with established reputations, which Wenzel does not have. Before anyone should decide to criticize that, you might want to know that RCP (Real Clear Politics) refused to even include Wenzel polls in it's calculations. Go take a look at Ohio and Missouri, for example:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio Senate - Mandel vs. Brown

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Missouri Senate - Akin vs. McCaskill


You also won't find Wenzel in the RCP presidential polling composites, either:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Ohio: Romney vs. Obama

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Wisconsin: Romney vs. Obama

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Missouri: Romney vs. Obama


So, actually, I gave Wenzel more the time of day in 2012 than RCP did.



Wenzel has done a GREAT amount of polling for WND. In 2009, it was already putting out polling questioning the President's eligibility (the birther issue):

Shocker! Most Americans know of Obama eligibility questions

Just 51% of Americans believe Obama eligible

Wenzel also insinuated that President Obama should be impeached over Benghazi:

Answer to Benghazi obfuscation? Impeachment

(no other pollster anywhere was showing these kinds of numbers)

Wenzel even put out a poll claiming that Sarah Palin (R) could make a serious primary challenge to President Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries of 2012:

Poll: Palin would stir up even Democratic primary



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FACIT: As I wrote at the top, I really don't care all that much for some of the crazy, out of the box "polling" that Wenzel has done. What does interest me is Wenzel's mathematical track record, which is abysmal. And if you go to Wenzel's website, you will notice that they don't have a poll-vault, where you can see their former results. You can pretty much take any Wenzel poll result, if it is an election poll, and shift the margin about 6 points to the LEFT, and there you will likely be closer to the truth. That is just plain old sad.


I want to make it clear again: I am not attacking Wenzel because it is right-wing oriented. I am attacking Wenzel because it's track record is absolutely atrocious. Were I a Democratic candidate for a big office and looking for a pollster, I would never take a DEM pollster with a record like that. Never. Ever.

I fail to understand why Rand Paul, who is trying to win the middle and establish a broad coalition and although his politics are not my politics - is a smart guy, would use the services of a pollster with this bad a track record. THAT is the point of the OP.

If that unfortunate, nagging suspicion that is aching the nation's belly about union omuerta swinging elections unfairly due to access to correct polling data, Wenzel may have been doing bullseyes, and the gooney birds of the union were laughing their lying butts off all the way to the WH with nothing in their way with regard to popcorn polls afterward (now illegal) and nobody paying attention to who voted and how many times (now legal), so as careful as your stats are Stats, IMHO, the jury is out with Wenzel's accuracy.

As to Rand Paul, if I had confidence that he could manage a balance between the true needs of the poor and a respect for businesses to engage in successful world competition for trade, I'd like him. Unfortunately, I haven't seen proof of that either. Also, I don't think Rand Paul understands the necessity this nation has for national security if we are to brave it out in the world as it is. I've seen him have no inkling into the need for confidentiality in security matters, and it worries the living pie out of me.

I wanta conservative President who also has a heart along with love and goodness toward ALL Americans, and I do mean there's a dearth of that in this country to keep it united at this point.

Extremists are worrisome people, and just like Barry Goldwater, the American people worry about people who can be vapid when it comes to balancing carefully the needs of the poor and the needs of the jobs market to employ the poor so they can take care of themselves, while still giving a helping hand to those who need one and complete and total loyalty to the Veterans of this nation who gave all they had to keep our nation free and a good place to live.

I'd like to see military people more active in government. Eisenhower was a dynamo who won honors for America in Europe, then came home, employed a nation, educated veterans and minorities, and pushed and got passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and got America international respect too.

Now, all we have is a slugfest in Washington, and the good old days seem long gone. Just sayin'...

Got to agree with Becki's observations. The special interests are in control and that is bad for what is best for the nation as a whole. We need a more holistic approach to governing this nation and that is not happening. Ike was a "big picture" man who warned us against the Military-Industrial-Complex. Now, more than ever, we need to heed that warning and get back to the basics of what will fix this nation. For all his faults Clinton had the best economy of my lifetime and he did that in a bipartisan manner that resulted in very low unemployment and crime rates while the middle class prospered.

That tells me that it is possible to do again. What is missing is the willingness to compromise and find those mutually beneficial solutions. When one party knows that it will do better in elections when the economy is in a slump and it does everything it can to make that happen then there is a serious problem. That is not serving the best interests of the people of this nation but only serving the narrow interests of that party and it's financial backers. Winning an election should not be an end goal. Doing what is right for everyone should be the goal.

I love your vision: "That tells me that it is possible to do again."

And, FWIW, that vision of yours just made my day.

 

[Statistikhengst]

If that unfortunate, nagging suspicion that is aching the nation's belly about union omuerta swinging elections unfairly due to access to correct polling data, Wenzel may have been doing bullseyes, and the gooney birds of the union were laughing their lying butts off all the way to the WH with nothing in their way with regard to popcorn polls afterward (now illegal) and nobody paying attention to who voted and how many times (now legal), so as careful as your stats are Stats, IMHO, the jury is out with Wenzel's accuracy.

As to Rand Paul, if I had confidence that he could manage a balance between the true needs of the poor and a respect for businesses to engage in successful world competition for trade, I'd like him. Unfortunately, I haven't seen proof of that either. Also, I don't think Rand Paul understands the necessity this nation has for national security if we are to brave it out in the world as it is. I've seen him have no inkling into the need for confidentiality in security matters, and it worries the living pie out of me.

I wanta conservative President who also has a heart along with love and goodness toward ALL Americans, and I do mean there's a dearth of that in this country to keep it united at this point.

Extremists are worrisome people, and just like Barry Goldwater, the American people worry about people who can be vapid when it comes to balancing carefully the needs of the poor and the needs of the jobs market to employ the poor so they can take care of themselves, while still giving a helping hand to those who need one and complete and total loyalty to the Veterans of this nation who gave all they had to keep our nation free and a good place to live.

I'd like to see military people more active in government. Eisenhower was a dynamo who won honors for America in Europe, then came home, employed a nation, educated veterans and minorities, and pushed and got passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and got America international respect too.

Now, all we have is a slugfest in Washington, and the good old days seem long gone. Just sayin'...

@freedombecki

Actually, no, it's not, and I have already proven it in exquisite detail, extremely exquisite detail, becki:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


I think you really need to read the entire blog article, all of it, and look at the tables.

There were well over 1,900 presidential election polls. The national polls were a mess, but the composite of the state to state polls showed a very clear picture, which lead me to this prediction one day before election day in 2013:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Bonncaruso's FINAL Electoral Landscape (No.8): Obama 303 / Romney 235


There were 117 polls of Ohio, for instance. Wenzel was the only one of the final 19 end-polls to show a Romney lead. The average of those polls?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=70

Obama +3.24.

Narrow the window to just polls from the last two days, and the average was:

Obama +3.16.

Actual result:

Obama +2.97.

Variance: 0.19%. Statistically, that is nothing. The composite polling was RIGHT. Wenzel was the outlier.

In order for your scenario to work, this would mean that 18 other pollsters (remember, there were 19 end polls), 18 completely independent-from-each-other pollsters, including Rasmussen (a very right leaning pollster) and including pulse (a Ras subsidiary, used by a Tea Party group for polling) would all have had to be in collusion with each other to make false numbers.

I am sorry, Becki, that is not how it works.


And on the national front, the best pollster of 2012?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Q0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=1

Democracy Corps (D) which predicted Obama +4 (actually, the .pdf says +3.8), which is just 0.14% over his actual margin.

Also, the argument you made, which actually has nothing to do with Rand Paul at all, is that somehow, Unions stole the election. But Unions are also a part of our society and just like the Tea Party, they also have a right to exert influence and sway people, just as the Tea Party did. You do realize this, right?

So, no, the jury is not out on Wenzel. Wenzel's numbers were absolute shit in 2012. If I as a pollster were to be off by almost 12 points in a Senatorial election, seeing clearly that my polling was not even in the ballpark to that of others, I would want to go out of business.

There is no defending Wenzel. But that is not the jist of the OP.

The jist of the OP is why Rand Paul has picked such a pollster, one with such a mathematically provable bad record, to do his polling, especially when Rand Paul is trying to win the middle.

Please don't tell me that you belong to a group of people who honestly think that Obama and the Democrats stole the 2012 election? Please, please don't go there.

The rest of your posting I found to be worth gold, btw. Outstanding.


Glad you stopped by. Hope you are feeling better!

-Stat

I know numbers mean a lot to you, Stat, and I appreciate that the "numbers" prove you correct as far as numbers go.

Omeurta is the loophole around the truth, and in this world in recent years, I saw claims that 99% of scientists went along with/ agreed with/ and believed there was truth with/ AGW. Suspicious investigative scientific claims computer nerds tracked emails and found that the chief cook and bottlewasher for AGW was telling other scientists to omit data from their bases so he could prove AGW had a basis in fact, and everyone would benefit with generous government/private science endowments/and philanthropists' megabuck support. Oh, how popular it was, and oh, how the public was duped, and how nice the plums from the unwitting promotional sponsors were.

All they had to do was practice omuerta, but emails do not allow the privilege of omuerta.

Is AGW true or false? The other grand omission was the levels of CO2. Never mind the debates that soar above me, I'm getting more and more skeptical of union-sponsored and wealth-redistribution sponsors on account of this and other Omeurta power and money grabs.

I'm sticking to my skepticism if not out-and-out sardonic outlook on the voting polls that produce these errors of omission and perpetuate them following public exposure, relying on the fact that voters are also workers, and they are busy as they can be trying to raise families in as much comfort and social improvement as possible.

I'm convinced that earthly do-good-ism works when it is so impossible to expose the omuerta that I know goes on behind closed doors. I should. I belonged to a moderately-dishonest union (not extreme by any means) for a year, having been threatened with harassment if I did not join the union. The first meeting I attended included 4 young women, separated from everybody else to hear it about wearing miniskirts higher than the 4-inch above-knee miniskirts allowed by management.

I felt it was a ploy by dirty old men to nab and grab errant middle management men on pernicious charges for being human, and it made me madder than a little red hatter to promote women using their bodies to corrupt men at the behest of a union that threatened my ability to support my children who needed my support. It went against my belief system that God is good and men should try to follow in Christ's footsteps, no matter what the cost is. I believe that trying to make somebody else make mistakes is bad and that people should live in a state of mercy, love, and humility with regard not only to God, but with fellow man as well. That's the path I picked with my freedom.

I understood the story you recounted to me, but I do not understand the relevance vis a vis elections or one specific election. Remember, there are past election numbers, base numbers to go on. There are voter registration rolls to compare to. And there is the added benefit of comparing voting from precincts that still only use paper ballots to precincts that use machines.

For cheating to happen as I believe you are suggesting, that would require the collusion of literally 1,000s of Democratic AND Republican poll workers all across the land, for most polling places are manned by both in even numbers and in virtually every polling place, the counting is doing in the presence of a poll worker from each party.

If you want to show me something specific, I am happy to look at it, but having studied all these things now over the last 5 elections (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and now, 2012), I see absolutely no evidence for the kind of fraud I think you mean.

I was, btw, saying exactly the same kind of things to Democratic friends after the 2004 re-election of then President George W. Bush (43), who won narrowly, but fair and square.

 

[Shrimpbox]

Ok stat, i am not challenging your conclusions, but what is the statistical possibility that 18,000 people can cast a vote in one precinct and not one vote would go to the challenger? Also, I don't remember which election, but the comment was that if just one person in every precinct in the US had changed their vote the outcome of the election would have changed, so that if you just had one person like the gal in Ohio in every precinct the election would look like a landslide. Inotherwords subtle election fraud would be impossible to uncover.

While I know this is probably not the thread to pursue this,it isn't the polling that is paramount in my disassembling of the 2012 election but why the polling was like that. There are many minor actions( IRS abuse of tea party groups is just one) that contributed to defeat but anyone who is honest has to admit that the four year dem ground game is what carried the day for Obama, and I still don't see a proper counter punch from repubs for this. The dems have perfected ways to literally herd people to the polls. This is the new reality and not enough political operatives on the right understand it. The companion strategy to this herding effort is to lie. The ends justify the means because no election outcome, especially on a national level , is going to be overturned unless it happened inside the ballot box. Once you win the election your people can stymie any investigation into wrong doing especially when the press is complicit. This is a unnerving development if all political parties adopt it and if the players do not have the integrity to push back. But like I said this is for another thread.

My earlier post about a Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush ticket I was serious about. If you think about it, it will probably take a combination like that to bring the country together to tackle the immense challenges the country faces. Think outside the box.

 

[BreezeWood]

| Circa News

Kentucky Senate passes bill that would allow Rand Paul to run for two offices at once


Current Kentucky law bars the dual-race scenario that would be allowed under the bill. While Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has not said whether he will run for president in 2016, he has said he will run to be re-elected to represent Kentucky in the Senate.

The bill was modeled after a similar bill passed in Wisconsin that allowed Rep. Paul Ryan (R) to appear twice on the ballot during the 2012 election in his bid to become Vice President and run to defend his House seat.

The bill faces an uphill battle in Kentucky's Democratic-led House. The House Speaker has already criticized that a person unable to decide for which office to run, "ain't fit to hold either one."

lest not forget Steve Beshear, governor of Kentucky and a Democrat has suggested vetoing such a law and if taken to court - Kentucky’s secretary of state Alison Lundergan Grimes, Democratic candidate for the seat held by Mitch McConnel would be the legal adviser for interpretation of the law.

Rand Paul has said he may go to court to claim the law prohibiting dual candidacy as unconstitutional - good luck and it will be Alison Lundergan Grimes that represents the State of Kentucky in the proceedings.

Pauls decision to run for President has a major hurdle to cross, one that might be the worst case scenario for the Senator that he be left not representing any office after 2016.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Kentucky Senate passes bill that would allow Rand Paul to run for two offices at once.

Sounds very autocratic and authoritarian, like something Putin would do.

 

[freedombecki]

@freedombecki

Actually, no, it's not, and I have already proven it in exquisite detail, extremely exquisite detail, becki:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: The moment of truth: how did the pollsters do?


I think you really need to read the entire blog article, all of it, and look at the tables.

There were well over 1,900 presidential election polls. The national polls were a mess, but the composite of the state to state polls showed a very clear picture, which lead me to this prediction one day before election day in 2013:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Bonncaruso's FINAL Electoral Landscape (No.8): Obama 303 / Romney 235


There were 117 polls of Ohio, for instance. Wenzel was the only one of the final 19 end-polls to show a Romney lead. The average of those polls?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=70

Obama +3.24.

Narrow the window to just polls from the last two days, and the average was:

Obama +3.16.

Actual result:

Obama +2.97.

Variance: 0.19%. Statistically, that is nothing. The composite polling was RIGHT. Wenzel was the outlier.

In order for your scenario to work, this would mean that 18 other pollsters (remember, there were 19 end polls), 18 completely independent-from-each-other pollsters, including Rasmussen (a very right leaning pollster) and including pulse (a Ras subsidiary, used by a Tea Party group for polling) would all have had to be in collusion with each other to make false numbers.

I am sorry, Becki, that is not how it works.


And on the national front, the best pollster of 2012?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Q0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=1

Democracy Corps (D) which predicted Obama +4 (actually, the .pdf says +3.8), which is just 0.14% over his actual margin.

Also, the argument you made, which actually has nothing to do with Rand Paul at all, is that somehow, Unions stole the election. But Unions are also a part of our society and just like the Tea Party, they also have a right to exert influence and sway people, just as the Tea Party did. You do realize this, right?

So, no, the jury is not out on Wenzel. Wenzel's numbers were absolute shit in 2012. If I as a pollster were to be off by almost 12 points in a Senatorial election, seeing clearly that my polling was not even in the ballpark to that of others, I would want to go out of business.

There is no defending Wenzel. But that is not the jist of the OP.

The jist of the OP is why Rand Paul has picked such a pollster, one with such a mathematically provable bad record, to do his polling, especially when Rand Paul is trying to win the middle.

Please don't tell me that you belong to a group of people who honestly think that Obama and the Democrats stole the 2012 election? Please, please don't go there.

The rest of your posting I found to be worth gold, btw. Outstanding.


Glad you stopped by. Hope you are feeling better!

-Stat

I know numbers mean a lot to you, Stat, and I appreciate that the "numbers" prove you correct as far as numbers go.

Omeurta is the loophole around the truth, and in this world in recent years, I saw claims that 99% of scientists went along with/ agreed with/ and believed there was truth with/ AGW. Suspicious investigative scientific claims computer nerds tracked emails and found that the chief cook and bottlewasher for AGW was telling other scientists to omit data from their bases so he could prove AGW had a basis in fact, and everyone would benefit with generous government/private science endowments/and philanthropists' megabuck support. Oh, how popular it was, and oh, how the public was duped, and how nice the plums from the unwitting promotional sponsors were.

All they had to do was practice omuerta, but emails do not allow the privilege of omuerta.

Is AGW true or false? The other grand omission was the levels of CO2. Never mind the debates that soar above me, I'm getting more and more skeptical of union-sponsored and wealth-redistribution sponsors on account of this and other Omeurta power and money grabs.

I'm sticking to my skepticism if not out-and-out sardonic outlook on the voting polls that produce these errors of omission and perpetuate them following public exposure, relying on the fact that voters are also workers, and they are busy as they can be trying to raise families in as much comfort and social improvement as possible.

I'm convinced that earthly do-good-ism works when it is so impossible to expose the omuerta that I know goes on behind closed doors. I should. I belonged to a moderately-dishonest union (not extreme by any means) for a year, having been threatened with harassment if I did not join the union. The first meeting I attended included 4 young women, separated from everybody else to hear it about wearing miniskirts higher than the 4-inch above-knee miniskirts allowed by management.

I felt it was a ploy by dirty old men to nab and grab errant middle management men on pernicious charges for being human, and it made me madder than a little red hatter to promote women using their bodies to corrupt men at the behest of a union that threatened my ability to support my children who needed my support. It went against my belief system that God is good and men should try to follow in Christ's footsteps, no matter what the cost is. I believe that trying to make somebody else make mistakes is bad and that people should live in a state of mercy, love, and humility with regard not only to God, but with fellow man as well. That's the path I picked with my freedom.

I understood the story you recounted to me, but I do not understand the relevance vis a vis elections or one specific election. Remember, there are past election numbers, base numbers to go on. There are voter registration rolls to compare to. And there is the added benefit of comparing voting from precincts that still only use paper ballots to precincts that use machines.

For cheating to happen as I believe you are suggesting, that would require the collusion of literally 1,000s of Democratic AND Republican poll workers all across the land, for most polling places are manned by both in even numbers and in virtually every polling place, the counting is doing in the presence of a poll worker from each party.

If you want to show me something specific, I am happy to look at it, but having studied all these things now over the last 5 elections (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and now, 2012), I see absolutely no evidence for the kind of fraud I think you mean.

I was, btw, saying exactly the same kind of things to Democratic friends after the 2004 re-election of then President George W. Bush (43), who won narrowly, but fair and square.

It's impossible to prove omuerta. Unions provide too much "free" labor to Democrats which makes the playing field unlevel. My gut says Obama did not win the election. Your figures, based on level playing field options says he did. Omeurta and a level playing field are like strangers in the night. They pass each other not seeing.

 

[Barb]

I fail to understand why Rand Paul, who is trying to win the middle and establish a broad coalition and although his politics are not my politics - is a smart guy, would use the services of a pollster with this bad a track record. THAT is the point of the OP.

The answer to your question might have to do with the fact that Paul is actually not a ‘smart guy,’ as at the very least he has to date exhibited considerable ignorance with regard to fundamental matters concerning governance and Constitutional law.

This could also be the nature of republican politics today, eschewing facts and the truth where GOP candidate seek instead to reinforce their subjective, sanctioned political dogma, particularly when pursuing voters on the far right, voters who indeed have no interest in facts or the truth.

Sure, I get that.

But let's put it this way: Rand Paul was smart enough to get elected to the US Senate.

And that is a chore that takes a lot of skills. Only 100 people out of 317 million make that a pretty damned exclusive club.

on the other hand, while she's in a completely different fraternity, she IS on the same campus:

 

[Statistikhengst]

The answer to your question might have to do with the fact that Paul is actually not a ‘smart guy,’ as at the very least he has to date exhibited considerable ignorance with regard to fundamental matters concerning governance and Constitutional law.

This could also be the nature of republican politics today, eschewing facts and the truth where GOP candidate seek instead to reinforce their subjective, sanctioned political dogma, particularly when pursuing voters on the far right, voters who indeed have no interest in facts or the truth.

Sure, I get that.

But let's put it this way: Rand Paul was smart enough to get elected to the US Senate.

And that is a chore that takes a lot of skills. Only 100 people out of 317 million make that a pretty damned exclusive club.

on the other hand, while she's in a completely different fraternity, she IS on the same campus:

Well, all I can say is: Australia

We'll see how many of you get the joke.

 

[jillian]

Is this guy the reason Rove was so shocked and saddened in 2012?

in part. because they get sucked up in wishful thinking and propaganda.

 

[Barb]

Sure, I get that.

But let's put it this way: Rand Paul was smart enough to get elected to the US Senate.

And that is a chore that takes a lot of skills. Only 100 people out of 317 million make that a pretty damned exclusive club.

on the other hand, while she's in a completely different fraternity, she IS on the same campus:

Well, all I can say is: Australia

We'll see how many of you get the joke.

Educate me, please. But first, for your viewing pleasure:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUdeuIj-yKk]The Mexican (7/9) Movie CLIP - One More Word...Naugahyde (2001) HD - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BreezeWood]

Kentucky Senate passes bill that would allow Rand Paul to run for two offices at once.

Sounds very autocratic and authoritarian, like something Putin would do.

The bill was modeled after a similar bill passed in Wisconsin that allowed Rep. Paul Ryan (R) to appear twice on the ballot during the 2012 election in his bid to become Vice President and run to defend his House seat.

no, it is purely homegrown Republicanism - altering elections to suit their political agenda, candidates of conviction need not apply.

... while modifications by the Administration to the ACA is characterized by Rs as political heresy.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

on the other hand, while she's in a completely different fraternity, she IS on the same campus:

Well, all I can say is: Australia

We'll see how many of you get the joke.

Educate me, please. But first, for your viewing pleasure:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUdeuIj-yKk]The Mexican (7/9) Movie CLIP - One More Word...Naugahyde (2001) HD - YouTube[/ame]

Australia was once just a huge penal colony for the English Crown - they were the barbarians. That would be the HOR.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Kentucky Senate passes bill that would allow Rand Paul to run for two offices at once.

Sounds very autocratic and authoritarian, like something Putin would do.

The bill was modeled after a similar bill passed in Wisconsin that allowed Rep. Paul Ryan (R) to appear twice on the ballot during the 2012 election in his bid to become Vice President and run to defend his House seat.

no, it is purely homegrown Republicanism - altering elections to suit their political agenda, candidates of conviction need not apply.

... while modifications by the Administration to the ACA is characterized by Rs as political heresy.

.

Out of fairness, it is not just Republicanism.

In 2000, then Vice-Presidential Candidate Joe Lieberman (D) also won his Senate seat in CT.

In 2004, then presidential Candidate John Kerry (D) also won re-election to his MA-Sen seat.

So, there's a pretty strong tradition about this on both sides and frankly, that part of it doesn't bother me at all. Free market - capitalism - may the best man win. That's all good with me.

 

[BreezeWood]

yes, both sides -

The House Speaker has already criticized that a person unable to decide for which office to run, "ain't fit to hold either one."

however for Rand Paul without the cover of the legislature he will have a decision to make that is not conducive to his political agenda.

.