Replies

Full article states: “What it essentially says is there’s a need to affirm something that isn’t factually supported by any measure of quantifiable empirical evidence.” Then, eight paragraphs later, goes on to attempt reinforcement of this premise with unsupported— and unsupportable— assumptions:

“It is highly doubtful that Diamond and Silk, would be “Stumping for Cruz”, or anything similar. It’s actually beyond doubtful, it’s a ridiculous proposition. Nor would there be thousands of Democrats changing their party affiliation to Republican to support Cruz in the primary elections.”

Entire “article” is based upon the premise that a CBS poll shows the true nature of the will of Republican primary voters. Yet the poll was not conducted in such a way as to accurately portray the stances of those same voters. The most simplistic inquiry into the methodology provides this glaring error:

“This poll was conducted by telephone October 4-8, 2015 among a random sample of 1,251 adults nationwide, including 1,038 registered voters. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The poll employed a random digit dial methodology. For the landline sample, a respondent was randomly selected from all adults in the household. For the cell sample, interviews were conducted with the person who answered the phone. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish using live interviewers”

Please note the small polling size for a national poll, the lack of targeted demographics ( “registered voters” do not = likely voters) and the fact that party affiliation of respondents was not listed.

If “sundance” wishes to be taken seriously, especially when taking on Mr. Johnson and attacking his credibility on election issues, I will demand for more substance to a rebuttal than “Ted Cruz once handed out teddy bears with Glenn Beck”.