“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!
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 don’t go to democrat rallies, sorry...to be fair, I don’t go to Hillary’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 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.
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, you’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 won’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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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 you’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.