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

[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):

http://www.wnd.com/2009/06/101368/

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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:
[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION] [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION] [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION] [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION] [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION] [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION] [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION] [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION] [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION] [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION] [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION] [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION] [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION] [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION] [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION] [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION] [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION] [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION] [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION] [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION] [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION] [MENTION=20342]Ringel05[/MENTION] [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION] [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION] [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION] [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION] [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION] [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION] [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION] [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION] [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION] [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION] [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION] [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION] [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION] [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION] [MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION] [MENTION=24122]racewright[/MENTION] [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION] [MENTION=44536]BobPlumb[/MENTION] [MENTION=46351]Shrimpbox[/MENTION] [MENTION=45164]pacer[/MENTION] [MENTION=16987]random[/MENTION] Variable [MENTION=48060]guno[/MENTION] [MENTION=41303]katsteve2012[/MENTION]

Please do not quote this posting, otherwise it will send out the mention list again. Thanks.

 

[Barb]

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

 

[Barb]

W. Kristal, too, right? Am I wrong, or were both of these men publicly shocked at the outcome?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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

Not necessarily. Dean Chambers, a dude who claimed that everything was skewed, put out his own "version" of other pollsters results, using a model he liked better. In other words, Dean Chambers lied.


I remember Rove's meltdown on election night and I remember laughing at his utter dishonesty. At that point in time, Cuyahoga County, which Obama was winning with 70%, was only 49% counted, and Toledo was only 4% in and Obama was still overperforming in Akron (Summit County), he was also winning in both Stark and Montgomery Counties - the two bellwethers of the state . Meanwhile, virtually all of Cincy (Franklin County) was in, and Obama was still winning there, where a Republican should be winning. I mean, hard core Right-Wing stats people working for FOX made the call for Ohio even before CNN announced the call. At the end of the day, Obama won Ohio by +2.97% in 2012, which is still larger than Bush's +2.11% win from 2004, and Clinton's +1.83% in 1992, Carter's +0.27% in 1976 and Truman's +0.25% in 1948 and Dewey's +0.37% in 1944. Hell, Obama's 2012 win was still bigger than FDR's first win with +2.85% in 1932!

At the end of the day, it just wasn't that close...

 

[JakeStarkey]

"RCP (Real Clear Politics) refused to even include Wenzel polls in it's calculations" means move the Wenzel poll five to six points to the left.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"RCP (Real Clear Politics) refused to even include Wenzel polls in it's calculations" means move the Wenzel poll five to six points to the left.

Not so sure I understood that, for RCP is actually a right-leaning website. Did I miss something in the translation, [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is there a method to this strategy? Are those predisposed to vote but feel the need to vote for a winner being manipulated?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"RCP (Real Clear Politics) refused to even include Wenzel polls in it's calculations" means move the Wenzel poll five to six points to the left.

Not so sure I understood that, for RCP is actually a right-leaning website. Did I miss something in the translation, [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?

It's clear. Wenzel is not to be trusted and adjust accordingly to what you posted above.

 

[DriftingSand]

I'm probably in the minority here but I pay little attention to polls. I prefer to look at a potential candidate's voting record; listen intently to what he or she is actually saying; and look for signs of truth, wisdom, and integrity in his or her eyes. I personally believe that America has become too focused (and distracted) on popularity contests like American Idol. In other words, I won't vote for someone just because he or she is doing well in the polls or because he or she seems to be popular or simply says that things I want to hear.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the work that went into the OP that reveals another piece of the political puzzle that most folks don't know exists or would never consider. Lots of string-pulling going on behind the scenes!

 

[Statistikhengst]

"RCP (Real Clear Politics) refused to even include Wenzel polls in it's calculations" means move the Wenzel poll five to six points to the left.

Not so sure I understood that, for RCP is actually a right-leaning website. Did I miss something in the translation, [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]?

It's clear. Wenzel is not to be trusted and adjust accordingly to what you posted above.

Got it. Was somehow unsure.

There are some very, very good, reliable Republican pollsters out there, I have no idea why Rand Paul is sticking with the birther pollster.

 

[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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm probably in the minority here but I pay little attention to polls. I prefer to look at a potential candidate's voting record; listen intently to what he or she is actually saying; and look for signs of truth, wisdom, and integrity in his or her eyes. I personally believe that America has become too focused (and distracted) on popularity contests like American Idol. In other words, I won't vote for someone just because he or she is doing well in the polls or because he or she seems to be popular or simply says that things I want to hear.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the work that went into the OP that reveals another piece of the political puzzle that most folks don't know exists or would never consider. Lots of string-pulling going on behind the scenes!

[MENTION=47390]DriftingSand[/MENTION]


Thank you!!!

Well, this is probably going to surprise you, but I never trust a single poll, even if it's from a pollster I have come to trust. It's the average of a healthy polling gene pool for a specific event or race that is important to me, for the average (sometimes minus both extreme outliers, sometimes not) is usually much closer to reality, at least in terms of election polling, for which we have the possible to measure performance, at least the end polling to the actual results.

What has happened since 2008 I can only call "the polling wars", where some fly-by-night firms spring out of the ground, publish bullshit statistics and then disappear. And Democrats are not innocent in this. Two very dubious fly-by-nighters put out whackadoodle results for both W. VA and ND in 2008. The one firm was called "Rainmaker" - a democratic firm that I lambasted for months thereafter.

However, in 2012, the polling wars reached a peak and there were a number of smaller GOP pollsters who put out very, very questionable results, esp. in light of the actual vote counts. Wenzel is just one of them, but Wenzel is definitely making money from the entire birther cottage industry.

When it comes to a candidate himself, though I love numbers, I don't watch polling in order to make my decision. I read the platforms, I study the candidates, I take time to think about their positions, their personalities, their (perceived) strengths and weaknesses, and then I make a decision. I have voted in every single mid-term and presidential election since coming of voting age in 1981. I have read both the Democratic AND Republican Platforms from the beginning to the end in every presidential contest, plus the Perot platform and some of the smaller 3rd and 4th parties now and then. I have watched almost all of the debates. I have personally shook hands with: Bill Clinton (unbelievably friendly), George W. Bush, Sr. (nice man, very personable), Al Gore (aloof), Bob Dole (genuine) and Dick Lugar (who is in my family tree, btw and would have been a damned fine President, what a shame). In 2004, I took a long time before making my decision. Ditto for 2012. An incumbent does not automatically get my vote just because he is an incumbent.

That being said, pres polling, at least with top notch firms, has become a pretty detailed science these days and a new methodology was also put into place by RAND in 2012, one that I find promising. In fact, I will be putting out a RAND thread pretty soon.

If I were a candidate, I would want a pollster who tells me the truth and doesn't fudge the numbers. And I would take a pollster with a good track record, which Wenzel does not have.

 

[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.

If that is the case, what a waste of money. And the dude wants to be about fiscal responsibility?

Plus, I thought he wanted to shed some of the tinfoil hat image he father had garnered over the years.

 

[AceRothstein]

Sounds like Unskewedpolls all over again. Tell them what they want to hear and they'll keep coming back for more.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wenzel didn't count on Obama cheating

 

[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.

 

[DriftingSand]

Statistikhengst: "If I were a candidate, I would want a pollster who tells me the truth and doesn't fudge the numbers. And I would take a pollster with a good track record, which Wenzel does not have."

Agreed!! Truth is all that really matters in the end. Honesty, integrity, truth, and trustworthiness.

 

[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.

 

[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?