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

[Statistikhengst]

Wenzel didn't count on Obama cheating

There is no proof of that at all. In fact, the stats speak very strongly against your, uh, "theory", and I can mathematically prove it as well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Rand Paul, won't make it past the primaries, if he does run. He has tried to hide his dislike for Civil Rights, but it will be played up and he won't be able to combat it.

I dunno, [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION], I see a major battle coming up between

Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Jeb Bush (who I think WILL declare)
Chris Christie (who will recover from Bridgegate and declare)
+ 1 wildcarder, maybe Rick Perry, maybe Suzanne Martinez.

 

[Derideo_Te]

While this is interesting, it seems to me that all internal polling is skewed in favor of the candidate for whom they're polling. Anytime a candidate being down by third party pollsters is brought up, the candidate will almost inevitably talk about how their internal polling shows a different story. It doesn't really matter who is doing the polling because their job simply seems to be to put out numbers favorable to the candidate they're polling for. It's why nobody should ever look at internal polling as being serious.

When everyone was claiming that Romney would win the Obama team was relying on their own internal polling and which polls turned out to be correct?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wenzel didn't count on Obama cheating

No evidence exists that either side cheated to the extent that it shifted the election.

The simple fact is that the GOP lost fairly and squarely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rand is using Wenzel for public exposure to ensure that the far right sees him as the only viable alternative to the Dems. I bet he has a private polling firm to feed him the realistic polls; the electorate will never see that until if and after he gains then nomination.

Now, I could be totally wrong about this, but it appears to me that the Rand Paul team is moving much faster than any other of the prospective GOP teams for 2016 - at least for now. Input?

Team Paul seems better organized, extensive, and funded.

 

[Statistikhengst]

While this is interesting, it seems to me that all internal polling is skewed in favor of the candidate for whom they're polling. Anytime a candidate being down by third party pollsters is brought up, the candidate will almost inevitably talk about how their internal polling shows a different story. It doesn't really matter who is doing the polling because their job simply seems to be to put out numbers favorable to the candidate they're polling for. It's why nobody should ever look at internal polling as being serious.

When everyone was claiming that Romney would win the Obama team was relying on their own internal polling and which polls turned out to be correct?

The Obama team only let one internal out, a poll of Ohio at the beginning of October, concurrent with the Columbus Dispatch poll. Both polls showed Obama at +9 in the buckeye State, just days before the first debate, where it is generally seen that the president farely badly against Mitt Romney. Since the Columbus Dispatch poll has always called the winner quite correctly since it's inception in 1916, I am pretty sure the Obama team wanted to rub it in Romney's nose.

But that's no guarantee that Obama's internal polling was that accurate in other states. My gut tells me that the Obama team preferred polls with a slight RIGHT bias (like PPP - which had a mathematical bias to the RIGHT of between 1.6 and 2.0 overall), so I bet their internals were no too generous with the president.

One of the worst cases of bad internal polling was the 1984 Mondale campaign. His pollster really truly had the guy winning, when it was clear to all that Reagan was cleaning his clock.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Rand is using Wenzel for public exposure to ensure that the far right sees him as the only viable alternative to the Dems. I bet he has a private polling firm to feed him the realistic polls; the electorate will never see that until if and after he gains then nomination.

Now, I could be totally wrong about this, but it appears to me that the Rand Paul team is moving much faster than any other of the prospective GOP teams for 2016 - at least for now. Input?

Team Paul seems better organized, extensive, and funded.

That is also my impression. Rand Paul is also working hard to gain as much media presence as he can.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While this is interesting, it seems to me that all internal polling is skewed in favor of the candidate for whom they're polling. Anytime a candidate being down by third party pollsters is brought up, the candidate will almost inevitably talk about how their internal polling shows a different story. It doesn't really matter who is doing the polling because their job simply seems to be to put out numbers favorable to the candidate they're polling for. It's why nobody should ever look at internal polling as being serious.

When everyone was claiming that Romney would win the Obama team was relying on their own internal polling and which polls turned out to be correct?

Who's everyone? As far as I can remember polls started showing Romney gaining support after the first debate, but I don't remember many third party pollsters consistently claiming that Romney maintained any kind of lead over Obama.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Now, I could be totally wrong about this, but it appears to me that the Rand Paul team is moving much faster than any other of the prospective GOP teams for 2016 - at least for now. Input?

Team Paul seems better organized, extensive, and funded.

That is also my impression. Rand Paul is also working hard to gain as much media presence as he can.

Paul is also trying to appear to be the "moderate" voice of the extreme right. He is shying away from the rabidness of Cruz and setting himself as being "acceptable" to both the extreme right and the establishment GOP. It is a smart strategy given that he wants the nomination. Perhaps his choice of pollster is to make him appear to be a "winner" against all comers.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

He actually rode in on the coat tails of his father's reputation. Without that he would never have succeeded in my opinion. But, to his credit, he is a quick learner and he is making all the right moves. Clayton is correct that Paul is profoundly ignorant when it comes to Constitutional and legal matters but that is not going to be a handicap when it comes to winning the nomination. It will only become a problem if he does win it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

As with the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, Paul represents the danger that is the extreme partisan right: politicians who are ‘smart’ in their ability to use demagoguery to exploit the fear and ignorance common among most conservatives.

Although it’s unlikely Paul will be the GOP presidential nominee, his progress still needs to be monitored, as with others on the extreme right, he and other reactionary conservatives indeed pose the greatest threat to the civil liberties of all Americans.

 

[Mertex]

Rand Paul, won't make it past the primaries, if he does run. He has tried to hide his dislike for Civil Rights, but it will be played up and he won't be able to combat it.

I dunno, [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION], I see a major battle coming up between

Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Jeb Bush (who I think WILL declare)
Chris Christie (who will recover from Bridgegate and declare)
+ 1 wildcarder, maybe Rick Perry, maybe Suzanne Martinez.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

And, Ted Cruz will win....not sure Christie is going to overcome his Bridgegate....he's alienated the Dems who voted for him, and there are already too many Reps that are disgusted with him...not over Bridgegate but over his friendliness toward Obama.

Jeb Bush, tied to Georgie will not make it.

 

[Wolfsister77]

The reason Rand Paul uses a pollster like that is because the guy comes up with the answers that Rand Paul wants to hear.

It really doesn't mean anything because Rand Paul has no chance. IMO

 

[Statistikhengst]

Rand Paul, won't make it past the primaries, if he does run. He has tried to hide his dislike for Civil Rights, but it will be played up and he won't be able to combat it.

I dunno, [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION], I see a major battle coming up between

Rand Paul
Ted Cruz
Jeb Bush (who I think WILL declare)
Chris Christie (who will recover from Bridgegate and declare)
+ 1 wildcarder, maybe Rick Perry, maybe Suzanne Martinez.

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

And, Ted Cruz will win....not sure Christie is going to overcome his Bridgegate....he's alienated the Dems who voted for him, and there are already too many Reps that are disgusted with him...not over Bridgegate but over his friendliness toward Obama.

Jeb Bush, tied to Georgie will not make it.

I see, for the first time since 1940, a real possibility for a brokered GOP convention.

 

[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

Sen. Rand Paul has become the first Republican to assemble a network in all 50 states as a precursor to a 2016 presidential run, the latest sign that he is looking to build a more mainstream coalition than the largely ad hoc one that backed his father’s unsuccessful campaigns.

So far, so good.


But THIS caught my eye:

“A national leadership team is an important step, and it’s a critical one for the movement going forward,” said Fritz Wenzel, Paul’s pollster. “Rand has tremendous momentum, and the formation of this team will guide him as he gets closer to a decision and [will] serve as a foundation for a campaign.”

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'...

 

[Shrimpbox]

Poll this stat, a Hilary Clinton-Jeb Bush ticket

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Sen. Rand Paul has become the first Republican to assemble a network in all 50 states as a precursor to a 2016 presidential run, the latest sign that he is looking to build a more mainstream coalition than the largely ad hoc one that backed his father’s unsuccessful campaigns.

So far, so good.


But THIS caught my eye:

“A national leadership team is an important step, and it’s a critical one for the movement going forward,” said Fritz Wenzel, Paul’s pollster. “Rand has tremendous momentum, and the formation of this team will guide him as he gets closer to a decision and [will] serve as a foundation for a campaign.”

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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Sen. Rand Paul has become the first Republican to assemble a network in all 50 states as a precursor to a 2016 presidential run, the latest sign that he is looking to build a more mainstream coalition than the largely ad hoc one that backed his father’s unsuccessful campaigns.

So far, so good.


But THIS caught my eye:

“A national leadership team is an important step, and it’s a critical one for the movement going forward,” said Fritz Wenzel, Paul’s pollster. “Rand has tremendous momentum, and the formation of this team will guide him as he gets closer to a decision and [will] serve as a foundation for a campaign.”

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'...

[MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]

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