Rick Santorum Endorses Marco Rubio

Anecdotal evidence is meaningless. It is not a matter of my liking it or not. The polls are what they are. We will see on election day how valid they are.

“Anecdotal evidence is meaningless.”

Yes, on-the-ground evidence is still factual evidence. Polls are meaningless because they have too many variables and never right. If you can’t understand that then there is NO hope for you.

At least, the next time I hear a Trump supporter on FR claiming they only see Trump signs in their town or that a Trump rally crowd is huge then I’ll be sure to mention your name and let them know that those observances hold no evidentiary value.

Phyllis Schlafly: Disqualify Marco Rubio for Lying About Amnesty in Spanish

http://www.breitbart.com ^ August 18, 2015 Katie McHugh
Posted on 2/4/2016, 2:59:01 PM by NKP_Vet

Phyllis Schlafly, architect of the modern conservative movement and tireless opponent of mass immigration, says GOP hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79% should be disqualified from the race for dishonestly saying one thing about amnesty in English and another in Spanish.

“If Jeb’s candidacy falters despite the $114 million he raised, the establishment’s next choices, Sen. Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have basically similar views,” she wrote in her Monday World Net Daily column:

Kasich said the 12 million illegals should be “legalized once we find out who they are,” and Rubio said Obama’s executive amnesty “can’t be terminated because there are already people benefiting from it.”

Rubio’s statement was made in Spanish on the Spanish-language network Univision, which is reason enough to eliminate him from serious consideration. When somebody is running for president of the United States, why should we have to get somebody to translate his remarks into English?

Why indeed? Bilingualism has corroded political discourse rather than strengthened it. Lying in a different language is a becoming bipartisan pastime. Democratic Rep. Luis GutiÃƒÆ’ (c)rrez mocked Kathryn Steinle’s death during a Spanish Telemundo interview, calling it a “little thing.” Steinle was allegedly murdered by an illegal alien. Gutierrez exploded with rage when an expert immigration witness calmly called him out during a congressional hearing.

I didn’t think Rick was not an amnesty whore, but he sure just endorsed one.

Let's try that again. I didnâ€™t think Rick was ~~not~~ an amnesty whore, but he sure just endorsed one.

Yes, on-the-ground evidence is still factual evidence.

Anecdotal evidence: Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases. Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances, for example the use of case studies in medicine.

You live in Texas a state having 27.5 million people and an area of 268,581 sq mi. You claim to know how GOP Texans will vote in the primary and discount the polls. So what are the results of your anecdotal evidence? Give me the percentages for the top candidates.

Polls are meaningless because they have too many variables and never right. If you canâ€™t understand that then there is NO hope for you.

LOL. First, the accuracy of polls is generally a quite good. It is why news organizations and politicians pay millions to get the polling results. For example here is Gallup's record on polling for Presidential elections"

Polls are meaningless because they have too many variables and never right. If you canâ€™t understand that then there is NO hope for you.

Second, as someone who has actually developed a political poll as part of a graduate statistics course, you don't have a clue as to how polling works. Yes, there are many variables that you can use to set up a representative sample. It is a scientific exercise to select the right variables and then weight them based on data. The best polling groups do that with very accurate results. And it is important to remember that a poll is only a snapshot in time. Circumstances can change due to many factors. It is also why polls have margins of error.

At least, the next time I hear a Trump supporter on FR claiming they only see Trump signs in their town or that a Trump rally crowd is huge then Iâ€™ll be sure to mention your name and let them know that those observances hold no evidentiary value.

Be my guest. We had similar claims made about seeing Romney signs everywhere in 2012. As it turned out, the sightings did not translate into votes and wins. Anecdotal evidence is not reliable.

“Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim “

So like I said...whenever a Trump supporter claims a rally crowd is huge, you’re admitting that information is meaningless and unreliable too! I’ll keep that in mind. LOL

“You claim to know how GOP Texans will vote in the primary and discount the polls.”

I claim to know that I have yet to meet a registered republican that supports Trump. I also have yet to meet ANYONE that know a registered republican Trump supporter and I do travel the State often and I do have a very large, statewide social and professional network. I have met someone that knows a demoncrat that supports Trump. That is a FACT. I also know there have been several local polls done, none of which show up on national news, and in each one, Trump is getting trounced by Cruz.

“First, the accuracy of polls is generally a quite good.”

LOL, sure...tell that to Trump in Iowa, McCain and Romney, and the list goes on. Polls take a small sample size, from a specific area, and ask specific questions, to get the result that they want. You might spend a little more time on FR and you would know that polls are ALWAYS wrong and more than often intentionally manipulated to get a specific result. Please...name ONE Iowa poll that was correct (hint...there were none according to Breitbart).

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence and I prefer to look at all of the evidence before making a decision. I don’t discount any evidence unless they are competing and one does not make sense given the other evidence. For example, when the polls showed Trump ahead of Cruz in Texas, I knew those polls were flawed because that would imply that at least one sign or one person could be found advocating for Trump, which was not the case. In fact, I finally saw my first Trump sign in Georgetown (outside of liberal Austin), but it was surrounded by a bunch of demoncrat signs too. However, I saw thousands of Cruz bumper stickers and yard signs all over Texas. Therefore, the poll numbers did not make much sense compared to the anecdotal evidence at the time. Now the polls have dramatically changed and show Cruz leading Texas, which does fit the other evidence. I only claim that those same polls that misled us on Iowa are still misleading us on Texas because Cruz’s lead will end up being much larger than the current polls show. I’m not a gambling man, but I’ll be money on that!!

I have a military intelligence background. We all know that on-the-ground intelligence is ALWAYS more reliable than electronic or other types of intelligence. That is a FACT!

If you want to take a poll then just look at FR. There are 2-3 posters from Texas that are for Trump, but about 20 of us that are from Texas and support Cruz. Each one of the Cruz supporters is seeing the same thing I am. In fact, most of the Trump supporters reluctantly admit that they see the same thing although they are hopeful it will change to their favor, which is not likely. Whether you like it or not, that is pretty reflective of the actual on-the-ground observances in Texas.

I really don’t care if you believe those of us that live in Texas, but I will continue to challenge any flawed poll that does not reflect the true on-the-ground situation.

So like I said...whenever a Trump supporter claims a rally crowd is huge, youâ€™re admitting that information is meaningless and unreliable too! Iâ€™ll keep that in mind. LOL

It is anecdotal and not necessarily representative of how people will vote and in what numbers. You can use it as a metric of comparison to other candidates in terms of the size and enthusiasm of the voters, but it is certainly not predictive as to how people will vote. Why can't a Trump supporter state a fact that a crowd at a certain event was huge?

I claim to know that I have yet to meet a registered republican that supports Trump. I also have yet to meet ANYONE that know a registered republican Trump supporter and I do travel the State often and I do have a very large, statewide social and professional network. I have met someone that knows a demoncrat that supports Trump. That is a FACT. I also know there have been several local polls done, none of which show up on national news, and in each one, Trump is getting trounced by Cruz.

So Trump will receive no registered Republican votes in the primary? How many registered Reps are there in TX? I asked you to give me the results of your anecdotal polls in percentages. How will the voters in Texas vote in the GOP primary by candidate?

You are suffering from the Pauline Kael syndrome.

LOL, sure...tell that to Trump in Iowa, McCain and Romney, and the list goes on. Polls take a small sample size, from a specific area, and ask specific questions, to get the result that they want.

That is not the way polls work. The polls in 2012 were fairly accurate in terms of the average error rate.

Among the more prolific polling firms, the most accurate by this measure was TIPP, which conducted a national tracking poll for Investorsâ€™ Business Daily. Relative to other national polls, their results seemed to be Democratic-leaning at the time they were published. However, it turned out that most polling firms underestimated Mr. Obamaâ€™s performance, so those that had what had seemed to be Democratic-leaning results were often closest to the final outcome.

Conversely, polls that were Republican-leaning relative to the consensus did especially poorly.

In terms of McCain, all the major polls showed Obama winning big. Rasmussen, Pew, and GWU Battleground got it right on the nose.

The polls in Iowa fluctuated with Cruz on top and then Trump. Asd it turned out Cruz came in first and Trump a strong second in a state that historically has been hard to predict. Turnout, when the voters make up their mind in the caucus process, the weather, and ground game are variables hard to quantify. Still, the polls still got the top two vote getters.

You might spend a little more time on FR and you would know that polls are ALWAYS wrong and more than often intentionally manipulated to get a specific result.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I don't spend a lot of time on FR. I have been a FReeper since 2003. I have posted 56,693 replies since joining.

The polls are not always wrong. In fact, they are mostly correct, especially as we get closer to election time because the pollsters must produce accurate information or they lose money and credibility. In 2012 many on FR had a hard time accepting the polls showing Obama leading. There was a lot of discussion about the composition of the polling samples and whether the GOP percentage was correct.

I have seen the same kind of denial when I lived in VA. The GOPe there could not accept the fact that demographics were changing the state to blue. Instead they blamed it on message and the lack of outreach.

I have a military intelligence background. We all know that on-the-ground intelligence is ALWAYS more reliable than electronic or other types of intelligence. That is a FACT!

I have a military/diplomatic background. I would not discount electronic intelligence when it involves penetrating an enemy's communications systems. The breaking of the Japanese Purple Code and the German's communications codes (The Ultra Secret) played a major role in winning the war.

Polls are based on on-the-ground evidence. You must contact the voters directly using a representative sample of the area. The key is developing a good sample using the proper weighting and variables.

If you want to take a poll then just look at FR. There are 2-3 posters from Texas that are for Trump, but about 20 of us that are from Texas and support Cruz. Each one of the Cruz supporters is seeing the same thing I am. In fact, most of the Trump supporters reluctantly admit that they see the same thing although they are hopeful it will change to their favor, which is not likely. Whether you like it or not, that is pretty reflective of the actual on-the-ground observances in Texas.

LOL. It may be representative of FReepers, but it is not representative of the voting population of Texas. Just being a FReeper narrows the universe considerably. We are more conservative and better informed than the average GOP voter. A lot can change between now and the Texas primary. Who has the momentum could change the calculus from what we see now. How would a Trump win in NH and SC coupled with a third or lower showing by Cruz affect the vote in Texas? Or if the reverse happens? Again, polls are a snapshot. The closer we get to the election, the more accurate they will become. The voters become more engaged and the data are better.

I really donâ€™t care if you believe those of us that live in Texas, but I will continue to challenge any flawed poll that does not reflect the true on-the-ground situation.

I will put more stock in the polls than the anecdotal evidence of someone who claims to know how Texans will vote three weeks from now.

“You can use it as a metric of comparison to other candidates in terms of the size and enthusiasm of the voters”

Actually, you can’t use it to gauge enthusiasm any more than you can to gauge voting patterns because many people, as evidenced in Iowa, just go see Trump for the entertainment value, but do not support Trump at all.

“Why can’t a Trump supporter state a fact that a crowd at a certain event was huge? “

They can state a fact that the crowd was huge, but Trump supporters don’t leave it at that. Read the previous threads. Trump supporters use that information in an attempt to show how much more popular Trump is over the other candidates, much like an exit poll. Then those same Trump supporters attempt to discount Cruz’s large crowds and ignore Trump’s small crowds. However, as we saw in Iowa, those big crowds meant nothing and did NOT translate into votes.

“So Trump will receive no registered Republican votes in the primary?”

I never said that. I did say, based on past election trends, and based on Cruz’s popularity and Trump’s lack of popularity in Texas that Cruz would crush Trump and I doubt Trump would break 20%. The TX GOP Primary is a close primary and has a high turnout rate. This race will no doubt improve those numbers. My guess, based on what I’m seeing on the ground here. Cruz will win 45-55% of the vote and Trump around the 20% mark. Of course, some of that can change, depending on other candidates dropping out, but I think most of those will divert to Cruz.

“You are suffering from the Pauline Kael syndrome. “

Typical liberal Trump supporter that resorts to name calling because they can’t handle the FACTS!

“That is not the way polls work. “

That is how polls work and the polls are never even close to being accurate until the day of the election and even that is rare.

“The polls in Iowa fluctuated with Cruz on top and then Trump”

That is my point...You can’t name ANY Iowa poll that was accurate even on the day of the election, which PROVES the polls are a joke.

“I don’t know how you came to the conclusion that I don’t spend a lot of time on FR.”

I never made a conclusion. You seem to have a habit of ‘reading between the lines’ and making false assumptions. I did state “if you spend more time reading...” and my statement still stands. You may be here a lot, but maybe not enough still if you haven’t realized that all of the polls have been horribly wrong for the last decade at least.

“I have a military/diplomatic background. I would not discount electronic intelligence when it involves penetrating an enemy’s communications systems.”

I never said to discount anything. In fact, I stated that you look at ALL of the evidence. However, if you did have an intelligence background then you would know that HUMINT is ALWAYS more accurate and real time than any other intelligence means.

“but it is not representative of the voting population of Texas”

How would you know?? I just love how people that are not born and raised in Texas seem to know more about Texas than those of use that are born and raised in Texas. It is pretty reflective of the current population. I agree that things could change, but unless Cruz drops out or makes a major mistake then Trump should just write Texas off as a loss. No amount of spin or hopefulness will change that.

“I will put more stock in the polls than the anecdotal evidence of someone who claims to know how Texans will vote three weeks from now”

That is too funny! You go on and on about how the polls are accurate only closer to the day and tell me not to discount the polls, but YOU are the one discounting the evidence on-the-ground and we both know that Cruz has a much stronger ground game in Texas than Trump could ever hope to have, but go ahead, live in your little fantasy bubble and dream that Trump could win in Texas, but don’t tell me how Texas will vote when you have not clue since you don’t live here.

Actually, you canâ€™t use it to gauge enthusiasm any more than you can to gauge voting patterns because many people, as evidenced in Iowa, just go see Trump for the entertainment value, but do not support Trump at all.

He did finish a strong second with 45,500 votes. If Trump was not in the race, I seriously doubt that 188,000 would have shown up for the primary breaking the old record of 120,000 nor would the Rep debates be drawing up to 24 million. Have you ever been to a Trump rally?

However, as we saw in Iowa, those big crowds meant nothing and did NOT translate into votes.

Simply not true. And the end result is 8 delegates for Cruz and 7 delegates each for Trump and Rubio. On to NH.

Cruz will win 45-55% of the vote and Trump around the 20% mark. Of course, some of that can change, depending on other candidates dropping out, but I think most of those will divert to Cruz.

No way will Cruz break 50%. And whose votes will go to Cruz if they drop out? Certainly not the supporters of Bush, Christie, Kasich, or Fiorina. And if Carson drops out, I can assure you they will not support Cruz after Iowa.

That is how polls work and the polls are never even close to being accurate until the day of the election and even that is rare.

Where do you come up with such nonsense? I provided you with data from the 2008 and 2012 elections.

Although polls have occasionally failed to predict who will win an election, pollingâ€™s track record is actually very good. The National Council on Public Polls has conducted analyses of presidential election polling accuracy from 1936 to the present and provides reports summarizing these results on its website. You can see Pew Research Centerâ€™s record on predicting the popular vote in presidential elections here.

The good track record of final pre-election polls does not mean that all pre-election polls are reliable. Polls conducted early in an election season should be taken as snapshots in time, and obviously cannot capture the impact of the campaign and events to come. This publication examines presidential election polls conducted well in advance of the election and attempts to gauge how predictive they are:

I never said to discount anything. In fact, I stated that you look at ALL of the evidence. However, if you did have an intelligence background then you would know that HUMINT is ALWAYS more accurate and real time than any other intelligence means.

ALWAYS? Give me a break. Did you ever hear of double agents and the use of disinformation? Just like every means of gathering intelligence, nothing is foolproof or totally reliable. And we can do things with electronic intelligence that is even better than HUMINT when it comes to capturing all types of communication between subjects. We still need humans to analyze the results.

That is my point...You canâ€™t name ANY Iowa poll that was accurate even on the day of the election, which PROVES the polls are a joke.

There you go again extrapolating from one instance and then generalizing. Polls are no joke. People pay for them for a reason. They are generally accurate. Here are the final RCP average of polls for Iowa compared to the actual results.

If you look a the results for all candidates, you will see that although the polls predicted a 4.7% win for Trump, the poll did capture the relative position of each participant. Cruz finished first rather than second as predicted; Trump finished second rather than first, Rubio finished third as predicted; Carson finished fourth as predicted; Paul finished 5th as predicted; and Bush finished 6th as predicted. I would say that the polls reflected pretty much the way the actual voting turned out except for the top 2.

I never made a conclusion. You seem to have a habit of â€˜reading between the linesâ€™ and making false assumptions

You said, "You might spend a little more time on FR and you would know that polls are ALWAYS wrong and more than often intentionally manipulated to get a specific result." I spend a lot of time on FR, more than you have. And I know more about polling than you do.

You may be here a lot, but maybe not enough still if you havenâ€™t realized that all of the polls have been horribly wrong for the last decade at least.

I have provided overwhelming data and links that prove you wrong. No doubt you will cite polls when it is to your advantage. Do you believe the polls that say most people don't like Obamacare?

I agree that things could change, but unless Cruz drops out or makes a major mistake then Trump should just write Texas off as a loss. No amount of spin or hopefulness will change that.

Why would Trump write off Texas as a loss. Texas is not a winner take all state. Delegates are distributed proportionately. The objective is to win enough delegates from all the primaries to get the nomination.

but YOU are the one discounting the evidence on-the-ground and we both know that Cruz has a much stronger ground game in Texas than Trump could ever hope to have, but go ahead, live in your little fantasy bubble and dream that Trump could win in Texas, but donâ€™t tell me how Texas will vote when you have not clue since you donâ€™t live here.

I am not discounting anything. The polls show Cruz ahead. You are disputing the size of the difference between the two based on anecdotal information. I will go with the polls, which have a more scientific basis. Cruz should win Texas as the sitting senator. Trump should win NY as a resident. The only thing is the margin of victory.

“He did finish a strong second with 45,500 votes”

Yes, he did get a lot of votes, but nearly came in third in Iowa. To hear Trump supporters, Trump’s crowds were so large that Trump would win in a landslide, especially, as they claimed, Cruz’s crowds were so small. The problem is the rally size clearly did not reflect voting trends. To dispute otherwise is simply ignoring the FACTS!

“Have you ever been to a Trump rally? “

I don’t go to democrat rallies, sorry...to be fair, I don’t go to Hillary’s either.

“Where do you come up with such nonsense?”

Please show me even ONE Iowa poll that was correct? None were! Yes, I could cherry pick a few polls here and there that were close throughout the history of polling, just like you did, but the FACT remains that polling is inherently inaccurate and has been in this election so far and the past several elections.

“No way will Cruz break 50%.”

Again, you know nothing of Texas politics. If it is a 2-way or 3-way race then Cruz will break 50%.

“I can assure you they will not support Cruz after Iowa”

So now you’re can predict the future and read minds?? Most people know Cruz did nothing wrong in Iowa. Only Trump supporters are foolish enough to think otherwise. Carson supporters will split between Cruz, Rubio, and a few to Trump, but so many people see Trump as a liberal that we would NEVER vote for Trump.

“nothing is foolproof or totally reliable”

I never said anything was. I’m getting tired of you constantly trying to put words in my mouth. I said HUMINT is always more reliable than SIGINT, which is a FACT! Double-agents?? Really?? HUMINT is usually the way that we detect double agents. We can get disinformation from any intelligence source so you’re making a straw man argument. HUMINT is usually how we detect that disinformation. You might want to debate things that you actually know something about and stay out of debates that you know NOTHING about apparently. You’re clearly one of those people that likes to tell a mechanic how to fix a car, while you barely know how to put the key in the ignition.

” I spend a lot of time on FR, more than you have. And I know more about polling than you do.”

Wow...if that is your claim to fame then you’re in trouble. Apparently, you don’t comprehend well then because you have no idea how much I’ve been on FR and you apparently know little about polling inaccuracies.

“Polls are no joke.”

Then you truly are a fool because you won’t find many people that agree with you.

“I have provided overwhelming data and links that prove you wrong. No doubt you will cite polls when it is to your advantage. Do you believe the polls that say most people don’t like Obamacare?”

First of all, you have NOT proven anything. You’ve provided a few polls that were close, but I have cited just as many instances in which they were wrong. You even contradict yourself trying to defend the accuracy of polls, while also pointing how so many of the polls have been wrong.

Yes, I believe the polls that show people dislike Obamacare because I’ve never met anyone that does like it. However, the democrats circulate polls that show most people love Obamacare. I don’t believe those polls because they are counter to on-the-ground evidence. I supposed you believe the polls that show most people approve of Obama and Planned Parenthood funding then, huh?

My point is that polls are only as accurate as the company conducting the polls, the sample size, the questions asked in the poll, etc. That is a FACT!! The variables can be easily manipulated, which is a common occurrence anymore.

“Why would Trump write off Texas as a loss.”

I never said anything about delegates. I was simply talking about winning and losing. Trump LOST Iowa, even though he got delegates. Trump will get delegates in Texas, but Trump will LOSE Texas. Trump can write off any chance of winning Texas if Cruz is in the race, even though Trump will still get delegates. Stop reading between the lines just to find something to argue about. You’re becoming a bore!

“I am not discounting anything”

Apparently you are. You refuse to acknowledge the on-the-ground situation or admit that it may be reflective of the actual mood in Texas. You think you know more than a person actually living in Texas and you think you can predict the future based on the same polls that were dramatically wrong in Iowa.

Too many Trump supporters, less than two weeks ago, were spouting off about a polls that showed Trump ahead in Texas and now less than two weeks later those polls show Cruz ahead. However, nothing on the ground has changed as far as visible support throughout the State. Do you really believe that the polls shifted 10-20% points in two weeks, while nothing changed on the ground?? If so, you’re gullible and hopeless.

Trump will probably win NY in the primary. I’ll concede that, but it is highly doubtful that Trump will win NY in the general election so NY is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Keep relying solely on your bogus polls if you want, but you’ll just keep getting disappointed just as you were when Trump LOST Iowa!

Yes, he did get a lot of votes, but nearly came in third in Iowa. To hear Trump supporters, Trumpâ€™s crowds were so large that Trump would win in a landslide, especially, as they claimed, Cruzâ€™s crowds were so small. The problem is the rally size clearly did not reflect voting trends. To dispute otherwise is simply ignoring the FACTS!

Trump got more votes than Huckabee or Santorum did in their wins. Trump did have the biggest crowds but he didn't have the ground game in Iowa that is required to win a caucus state. You keep using the strawman of Trump supporters who were predicting a landslide. How many predicted that? Give me some numbers. Was it a majority of Trump supporters? Are you using just those posting on FR?

I donâ€™t go to democrat rallies, sorry...to be fair, I donâ€™t go to Hillaryâ€™s either.

You can continue to attack Trump supporters, but if you want to get into a cage death match, Rubio will win. Trump is the true outsider who will be the last one standing against the GOPe. If Trump were not in the race, they would have taken out Cruz a long time ago. As someone who has attended a Trump rally here in SC, I can say without any hesitation that his supporters are not Democrats. They are pissed off Reps who despise the political class.

Please show me even ONE Iowa poll that was correct? None were! Yes, I could cherry pick a few polls here and there that were close throughout the history of polling, just like you did, but the FACT remains that polling is inherently inaccurate and has been in this election so far and the past several elections.

What do you mean by "correct"? The average of the polls got the the first six positions correct except reversing the first two positions. The Emerson poll was probably the closest in terms of the percentages for each candidate. Again, you don't seem to understand how polling works and why there are such things as margin of error. I gave you all the data and links. If you either don't read or understand the data, there is little I can do for you.

Again, you know nothing of Texas politics. If it is a 2-way or 3-way race then Cruz will break 50%.

LOL. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if you have a two way race, someone is bound to get 50%. Now you are placing more conditions on the percentage Cruz will get. Now it has to be just a two or three person race for him to get 50%. You didn't put that proviso in for your initial anecdotal poll results.

Wow...if that is your claim to fame then youâ€™re in trouble. Apparently, you donâ€™t comprehend well then because you have no idea how much Iâ€™ve been on FR and you apparently know little about polling inaccuracies.

I do know that you have been on FR since August 20, 2009. I have you by more than six years and I am sure by the number of posts. I also donate quarterly to FR and encourage you to do so if you haven't already.

Re polling: I will reiterate that you don't understand polling and how it is done. Nor do you seem to comprehend the data I have provided to you about the historical accuracy of Presidential polling. It isn't perfect, but polling has been remarkably accurate over the years. It is a snapshot in time. It is easier to remember the failures than the many more times it has proven to be correct.

Do you really believe that the polls shifted 10-20% points in two weeks, while nothing changed on the ground?? If so, youâ€™re gullible and hopeless.

Of course. That is the nature of primary polling. It is volatile. Many voters aren't engaged at the outset. The closer we get to election day, the more engaged they get and the more accurate the polling. And there are events that can alter perceptions and preferences. A win by Cruz in Iowa helps him and a loss by Trump hurts him. The next primary in NH could change things again. We have had only one primary result. This is not a sprint, but a marathon. The Cruz supporters seem to believe that their guy will now run the table. He is unbeatable. But the conditions in Iowa are far different than those in NH, SC, and NV. The demographics are different. The electorate is different. A caucus process is not the same as a straight election. Some states like NH and VA allow people to choose what party primary they wish to participate. Voters are not registered by party.

I said HUMINT is always more reliable than SIGINT, which is a FACT! Double-agents?? Really?? HUMINT is usually the way that we detect double agents.

Simply not true. HUMINT is not always more reliable than SIGINT. And we detect double agents many times thru interception of their communications or bugging them. When Hillary Clinton has Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) on her unclassified server that mentions sources and methods, then those people are exposed thru electronic means. The same thing happens if the other side is penetrated revealing the same information. How much damage did Walker, Snowden, Ames, Hanssen, etc. do to our national security. How long did it take to detect them?

Then you truly are a fool because you wonâ€™t find many people that agree with you.

If they are such a joke, why do the media and the candidates spend millions on them? Why do think Cruz redirected his ads the last two days in Iowa from Trump to Rubio? Do you think his campaign and others use internal polls? A fool? So you have to get personal because you lack the intelligence to engage in a meaningful discussion. You don't need no stinkin' facts.

First of all, you have NOT proven anything. Youâ€™ve provided a few polls that were close, but I have cited just as many instances in which they were wrong. You even contradict yourself trying to defend the accuracy of polls, while also pointing how so many of the polls have been wrong.

I provided you with detailed data from both the 2008 and 2012 elections. You just didn't read it or you lack the intellectual wherewithal to understand it. As I said, I can't do any more. You can wallow in your ignorance and rely on insults. Not cutting it.

Of the 25 national polls in the last week, 1 6 sho wed Obama with a numeric lead, 7 showed an exact tie and two gave Romney a numeric lead. Many of the margins were less than twice the sampling error where a sampling error was reported , and most were with one times the sampling error. The average margin among all 25 polls was 1. 6 percentage points, compared with the vote margin of 3. 85 percentage points. The poll margins between the candidates varied from an 1 1 percentage point Obama margin to a 1 percentage point Romney margin

My point is that polls are only as accurate as the company conducting the polls, the sample size, the questions asked in the poll, etc. That is a FACT!! The variables can be easily manipulated, which is a common occurrence anymore.

Duh. In order for a poll to have credibility, polling companies must be able to demonstrate that they reflect reality based on the results of an election or some other feedback mechanism. If they are wildly off, they lose credibility and customers. The marketplace works. And it goes beyond sample size. The real key is developing a representative and properly weighted sample that mirrors the electorate. Registered voters or likely voters, percentage by political party, demographics like race, ethnicity, and gender, etc. The best polling outfits are those that have the most representative samples using scientific methods.

I never said anything about delegates. I was simply talking about winning and losing. Trump LOST Iowa, even though he got delegates. Trump will get delegates in Texas, but Trump will LOSE Texas. Trump can write off any chance of winning Texas if Cruz is in the race, even though Trump will still get delegates.

The objective is to get more TOTAL delegates than the other guy. Trump can lose Texas and Iowa and still get the nomination. The winner take all states have a bigger impact than those that allocate delegates proportionately. The winner take all process starts on March 15. If Trump wins NH, it is not a big deal in terms of delegates except how it may affect voters in future primaries and donors. Iowa helped winnow the field. NH and SC will lop off a few more. You can continue with your sophomoric use of LOST and LOSE for Trump, but the race has only begun.

Apparently you are. You refuse to acknowledge the on-the-ground situation or admit that it may be reflective of the actual mood in Texas. You think you know more than a person actually living in Texas and you think you can predict the future based on the same polls that were dramatically wrong in Iowa.

The polls in Texas will get more accurate as we approach election time. Again, the polls in Iowa were not "dramatically" wrong. They predicted the finish of the top six except reversing who was first and second. Now if Kasich or Christie won Iowa then it would be dramatically wrong. Will Trump finish in the top two in NH? I would say yes based on the polls. You would say that the only way we would know is to have someone like you in NH using anecdotal evidence. You consider the polls in NH worthless and not predictive of the results. We will see.

Trump will probably win NY in the primary. Iâ€™ll concede that, but it is highly doubtful that Trump will win NY in the general election so NY is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

How do you know Trump will probably win the NY primary? You don't live in NY. NY is not irrelevant when it comes to getting delegates in the primary so you can get the nomination. NY is a solid blue state that will stay Dem, but TX is still a solid red state that will go Rep regardless of who is on top of he GOP ticket. So I guess who wins the TX primary is irrelevant.

Keep relying solely on your bogus polls if you want, but youâ€™ll just keep getting disappointed just as you were when Trump LOST Iowa!

LOL. I guess I will have to rely on the NH polls and see if you are disappointed when Cruz loses NH. I guess I can then say that Cruz LOST NH.

“Trump did have the biggest crowds but he didn’t have the ground game in Iowa”

And as I’ve stated, those “big” crowds did not translate into votes. You seem to enjoy arguing for no reason. We both apparently agree that Trump had large crowds, but lost Iowa because not enough of those crowds votes. Therefore, those “large” crowds did NOT translate into votes regardless of the reason.

“You keep using the strawman of Trump supporters who were predicting a landslide. How many predicted that?”

No straw man argument. If you read even half of the Iowa posts on FR then you would know that most Trump supporters predicted a landslide, just like their doing now for NH, SC, the SEC, etc. If you deny that is happening on FR then you’re either not reading enough on here or you’re being intentionally dishonest.

“Trump is the true outsider who will be the last one standing against the GOPe”

That is nothing more than your OPINION. I, and many others, see Trump as the epitome of the Establishment because he spent 30+ years funding the establishment and liberal agendas...the same establishment and agendas that have ruined our country. I agree that Rubio may win, but with Rubio, we’ll get another GWB. With Trump, we may get another Bill Clinton or Obama, depending on his policy positions for that week.

“As someone who has attended a Trump rally here in SC, I can say without any hesitation that his supporters are not Democrats.”

That is not what the media is reporting...and before you start that the media is lying, maybe you should first think about who is pushing these polls that you love so much. You can’t call the media liars about the crowd, but believe them about the polls. That would be disingenuous! The media is claiming that large numbers of the rally crowds are just there for the show and will not vote for Trump. I think I’ll believe those numerous reports, which seem to match the vote totals, rather than your very limited experience at a rally.

“”Now you are placing more conditions on the percentage Cruz will get”

No, I didn’t put any additional conditions. If you actually read my posts, I clearly stated that it depends on the other candidates in the race. If there are all of the same candidates as now then Cruz will get 40%+, but if it is a 2 or 3-way race then Cruz will break 50%. You’re the one changing the goal posts because you DID say that Cruz could NEVER break 50%, but now you admit that he could.

“you don’t seem to understand how polling works “

I clearly understand how polling works. I have an accounting/actuarial background so you’re kind of preaching to the choir. I also acknowledge that NONE of the polls were accurate for Iowa. You use the straw man argument that they were partially accurate. Well partially accurate is NOT accurate. I think the Texas polls are partially accurate because they show Cruz winning, but they are not completely accurate because the spread will be greater than predicted. Furthermore, polls can be manipulated depending on the variable previously described. If you can’t accept or admit that then you are a total fraud that just likes to argue.

“I have you by more than six years “

See there is where you would be WRONG again. I’ve had an account since 2009, but I’ve used or lurked from my wife’s account which has been active since 1998, which is 5+ years longer than you. We have also donated thru her account as well. There really isn’t any point in donating thru two accounts when it totals the same amount of money. As I stated before, you really need to stop making false assumptions because it doesn’t make you look good.

“It isn’t perfect”

Like I said, name ONE Iowa poll that was accurate! You can keep insulting me all you want and claim to know so much about polling, but clearly you don’t or your just dishonest. In either case, you’re WRONG and no matter how many times you want to claim the polls are accurate, the FACTS do NOT support your claim. You can cherry-pick the polls all you want, but as a whole they are a joke. You will never convince me otherwise so stop wasting our time.

“why do the media and the candidates spend millions on them”

The media uses polls to manipulate people like you. The candidates don’t rely on the media polls, but do their own polling, which is different than the media polls. Most of those internal polls are not published and the few that are often counter the big media polls. It has happened numerous times in which the candidate states their internal polling is showing a different picture than the media polls. To say otherwise, is a lie because that is a documented phenomenon.

“It is volatile.”

This is where you lose the argument. You can’t call a poll volatile and at the same time claim they are always accurate. The very nature of polling is that they are volatile. I do agree with you there. However, that volatility is why they are often inaccurate or do not accurately depict the true on-the-ground situation.

“The Cruz supporters seem to believe that their guy will now run the table.”

I have yet to hear any Cruz supporter say Cruz will run the table. All Cruz supporters know Cruz will not win liberal NH. Trump supporters are the only ones saying Trump will the table from NH to SC. I don’t think either will run the table unless Rubio suddenly drops out, which won’t happen either. I think Trump will win NH, he is a liberal and so is NH so it makes sense. However, I don’t think it will be a landslide. I think Rubio will come in second and Cruz 3rd. Rubio will be fairly close to Trump. I’m pragmatic so I don’t have to make false assumptions like you’ve been doing.

I also don’t believe NH or Iowa matter much because their delegate count is proportional and very small in comparison to other States. The only thing these wins/loses impact are the perception of the candidates. For instance, Iowa PROVED Trump could lose and Cruz could win. Iowa also PROVED the polls were wrong and over-inflated. That is all Iowa did and that is all NH will do. Trump is currently polling 26% ahead of the next closest challenger. If that polling trend holds and Trump wins by less than 15-20% then it will still hurt Trump because it will be further EVIDENCE that the polls are over-inflating Trump’s poll numbers. You will then see a major correction in the polls and it will appear that Trump is declining, while in fact, he didn’t decline, the polls were just wrong to begin with.

“The marketplace works”

I agree that there are some polling agencies better than others, but I find it interesting that Trump supporters cling to ANY poll showing Trump ahead, while discounting EVERY poll that shows Trump as the ONLY candidate losing to Hillary AND Sanders, even if the same company is doing both polls. That behavior is dishonest IMO.

“The polls in Texas will get more accurate as we approach election time”

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you on this. Polls usually lag behind public opinion and what is happening on the ground. For instance, people generally make up their mind about a candidate and then tell the pollsters. Few people tell the pollster a candidate if they have not already made up their mind. Otherwise, they would just tell the pollster ‘undecided’. So by definition, the poll is a lagging indicator of public opinion and I’m only telling you what I see on the ground. You’re the one that is writing the 10-page posts trying to minimize or discount what it happening before my very eyes. What is funny is that my networks are larger than many of the polls sample sizes so for you to discount my observances while clinging to smaller polls samples is quite humorous. I will continue to take the polls with a grain of salt, while monitoring what is happening in the State.

“Trump can lose Texas and Iowa and still get the nomination”

I never said otherwise. What I DID say is that Super Tuesday will be what really matters. Again, we apparently agree on this issue, but you insist on starting an argument over something we agree on.

“You would say that the only way we would know is to have someone like you in NH using anecdotal evidence. “

Again, you are LYING and ignoring what I actually wrote. I clearly stated that I would considers ALL facts, including the polls and someone on the ground. However, if people in NH were saying that there are millions of Rubio signs and bumper stickers and no Trump signs/stickers then I would have to question the polls accuracy. I would not completely discount the poll, but I would be cautious in believing or citing that poll. I like to remain objective with the evidence...all of it. You can chose to ignore the on-the-ground evidence and cling to your polls, but then you lose your objectivity and ability to think for yourself.

“You consider the polls in NH worthless and not predictive of the results.”

Another LIE or false assumption on your part. I never said anything about the NH polls. I don’t know if they are predictive because I don’t know people in NH to confirm them. We will see if they are accurate after the election, but again, if they are not or they self-correct down by 20% for Trump on election day then that will be additional EVIDENCE that the polls are inherently inaccurate or intentionally propping Trump up. If Trump wins by 20%+, as the polls predict, then it will take additional polling and results in other States to determine if the polling methodology was corrected from Iowa or not.

“How do you know Trump will probably win the NY primary?”

I don’t know that he will win NY, but since Trump is from NY, has the same liberal NY values, then it is a safe bet to assume that Trump will win NY. I don’t need any polling to tell me that a liberal like Trump has a better chance to win in a liberal State than a conservative like Cruz.

“So I guess who wins the TX primary is irrelevant.”

Again, you’re missing the point of my post and attempt to draw your own false conclusions. I said NH was irrelevant because it will vote democrat in the general. That is fairly certain. NY is also irrelevant for that reason. TX is not irrelevant because it will vote republican in the general. The difference is that those States that Trump will win in the primary will NOT help us in the general so why let liberal, blue States pick our next republican candidate. TX will help us win the presidency that is the difference. If you don’t understand that then you are extremely naÃ¯ve or blinded by your own biases.

“I guess I will have to rely on the NH polls and see if you are disappointed when Cruz loses NH”

You can do what you want. If you want to rely solely on polling propaganda then go right ahead. You’re the one that insists on writing a 10-page post attempting to insult me and make continuous false assumptions. I too will watch the polls, but I’ll also watch the people on-the-ground. I like to remain objective, which clearly you don’t have an interest in doing. My posts tell the pros and cons to the benefit and detriment of Cruz. You try to twist everything to suit your agenda of hating Cruz and loving Trump. You’re blinded by your own biases.

“I can then say that Cruz LOST”

You’re probably safe in saying Cruz LOST NH now. I don’t think that is even in dispute.

Again, NH does NOT matter anymore than Iowa did as far as delegate count or votes goes. NH is all about Trump now. If Trump doesn’t win, even if he loses to Rubio, then Trump is toast because his public perception will greatly decline; not because he has a few less delegates, but because the myth of Trump will be destroyed. Furthermore, if Trump wins, but just barely wins, then Trump will suffer the same fate. Trump NEEDS to win and NEEDS to win big to have any hope of salvaging his “winner” image.

Any major difference in the polling and election, like in Iowa, will also hurt Trump, regardless of who wins NH, unless Trump actually out-performs his polls, which is not likely given his current huge polling leads. As a Trump fan, you really should be cautious about the polls. Those very polls are setting Trump up for failure because they are setting such high expectations that if Trump falls short of those expectations then it will tarnish Trump’s image even if he actually wins NH.

Now please...no more 10-page posts. It is becoming a bore, especially since you seem intent on picking a fight even on the topics that we apparently agree upon.