Fox News Promotes Batch of Agenda Polls: National, New Hampshire, Iowa…

When there is a lack of publicly presented MSM polling, generally it’s because the results within their polling is not fitting with the preferred narrative. Such is the case with the absence of polls from December 10th to January 8th.

With that in mind, and accepting that time was of the essence for GOP debate formatting for next week, it was certain that some form of MSM polling, from the major networks, was soon to surface. However, the batch of polls released today might fit for the purpose of MSM debate stage formatting, but beyond that – these are totally useless “agenda polls”.

The full polling results, and their accompanying pdf’s are below. After the data presentation we’ll show how and why the Fox polling can be completely disregarded. The agenda polling has an unintended consequence of being specifically adversarial for Marco Rubio supporters, and is transparently flawed.

Here’s the National Result:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton greets a supporter following her address at the 18th Annual David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University in New York

Here’s the data – Fox Presentation Narrative also HERE

Here’s the New Hampshire Result:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton greets a supporter following her address at the 18th Annual David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University in New York

Here’s the data – Fox Presentation Narrative also HERE

Here’s the Iowa Result:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton greets a supporter following her address at the 18th Annual David N. Dinkins Leadership and Public Policy Forum at Columbia University in New York

Here’s the data – Fox Presentation Narrative also HERE

While these might seem like favorable polls for Trump and/or Cruz, it doesn’t matter when the sample data is intentionally manipulated to produce a desired result.

When looking at any polling methodology two things are first reviewed.  #1 The raw numerical data of the sub-sets (men, women – ages, races, etc.) how many are there; #2 and the Margin of Error (MOE) for each category.

Any polling sample that is possibly over/under stated, and therefore requires the polling result to be modified to fit the pollsters “assumptions”, carries a higher margin of error (MOE).

When the MOE is higher in a sub-set that should naturally be low, then the polling sample is generally flawed.  It could be intentionally flawed or unintentionally flawed, ex. over/under sample, that depends on the integrity of the pollster.

♦ If you were to put a MOE to the number of humans polled.  The polling sample would be 100%.  It is only possible to poll humans and so the sub-set is 100%.  Regardless of the number of respondents, the MOE is -0- % because the assumption is you can only poll humans.

♦ If you were to poll gender, there are only two possible sub-sets: Men or Women.  If you poll 1000 respondents and get 510 women (51%) and 490 men (49%) you would have a perfect sample of the general population.  [Which is 51/49 women/men]  Again, your MOE would be -0-%

However, if you were polling for a historical assumption of voting: 53% women voting -vs- 47% male voting (which is traditional turnout) with the above data you would have a MOE of +/- 4%.  Why, because you are polling 51% female and need 53% female for your assumption – that’s 2%; and the reverse is true for the male sample (polling sample 49, traditional turnout 47).  2% for each sample leads to a combined MOE of +/- 4%

Hopefully that *roughly* explains how it works.

So, with that in mind when you look at the Fox poll data what sticks out?  First, the raw number within the sub-sets is hidden, they just don’t show it.  That’s a big red flag.

Second, they only polled two age groups:  Under 45-years-old, and Over 45-years-old.  Only two possible variables, by their own standard, so the MOE should be small.  EXCEPT IT’S NOT.  The Margin of Error is a whopping 10% !  Whiskey*Tango*Foxtrot. That’s an even bigger red flag.

What that means is they over or under sampled young or old.  If you look at the results, and you’ve followed historic polling patterns, you’ll immediately spot they UNDERSAMPLED young voters, those under 45.   Who does that benefit?   Ted Cruz.

Both Marco Rubio and Donald Trump benefit from higher support among young voters; and 10% is a big effen deal when spread amid only two possible variants (age groups).   For example in Iowa that could mean Trump 33 Cruz 17.  Or Rubio 25, Cruz 17  quite a difference, eh?

So Fox doesn’t show the raw numbers of who they polled, and they oversampled the older sub-segment (older than 45)  people – giving them a whopping 10% margin of error on age.   Two flags.

As a result of this basic polling flaw, the down stream results are also skewed.  That’s why you see Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and then Donald Trump pulling in the non-Cruz vote (“if Cruz not in” question).   Do you really think Cruz voters are the Christie/Rubio crowd? Think about the basic premise.

When the raw data is flawed, over/under sampled, all downstream data is also flawed.

Add the overall Fox agenda to promote Cruz over Trump in Iowa (remember them using the Monmouth poll 24/7 and dismissing/ignoring the larger sample size CNN poll in Iowa – same day)….. and then you add the overall Fox GOPe agenda to promote the GOPe goal:

…. Remove Trump and Cruz becomes Newt Gingrich, Carson becomes Herman Cain and Bush/Rubio take the role of Romney ’12…

Well you can see how that all adds up.

But wait, it gets better….

Additionally, when you combine those two brutally obvious polling red flags, with the two previously known agenda items, and then look at the results – you can’t forget to add in the previously announced main debate stage qualifications:

fnb debate 5

 

Top Six Nationally, and/or A Top Six position in Iowa, NH or SC.

Which means we get: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Fiorina = Top Six (national) + Kasich (5th in NH) and Christie (6th in NH) and Paul (5th in Iowa).

We’re back to NINE candidates on the main stage….  A debate stage hosted by what network?

Dr_Phil_teen_youtube_beating

*Note* On December 6th the debate line-up was six; the same top six nationally were polling in the top six in each early state.  In order to get these specific polling results putting all nine back on a singular debate stage the odds are approximately 450,000:1  +/-

This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2016, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, media bias, Ted Cruz, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

213 Responses to Fox News Promotes Batch of Agenda Polls: National, New Hampshire, Iowa…

  1. Winston says:

    Should be a good thing to have 9 on stage right? Let the GOPe vote be as split as possible. My fear is that after NH the establishment vote consolidates around a candidate like Rubio and they can pull it off.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1hear2learn says:

      Was 100% with you up to the last 5 words, but that of course is what we’re all fighting against. Trump2016!

      Liked by 6 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Well if they get 9 on one stage they do not have to host a low rating kiddie table and will hopefully generate a higher rating for a single debate. Cha Ching!

      Liked by 3 people

    • 1American1st says:

      Winston –
      Are you an Illegal Alien or do you just want 10s of Millions of them flooding the U.S. so we can support them? Those are the only 2 reasons anyone would vote for Rubio.

      TRUMP 2016

      Liked by 4 people

    • sammyhains says:

      I would like to see Huckabee on stage.
      I think they calibrated their qualifications specifically to take Huckabee off the stage but keep Paul, Fiorina, and Bush.

      The reason they want to get rid of Huckabee is because he defends Trump, while Paul and Fiorina attack him.

      Also, Huckabee is a threat to Cruz’s precious evangelical votes. They need Cruz to do as well as possible to try to stop Trump in Iowa.

      Liked by 5 people

  2. 1hear2learn says:

    Great analysis, particularly usual!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Sanj says:

    Hey it looks like Ted a few staffers and a couple reporters got together for a “rally”. I can’t believe Laura Ingram retweeted this

    https://t.co/9D6do9bjcP

    Liked by 1 person

  4. great information provided on these polls by Sundance , Thank You
    To be honest I do not like so many on the debate stage but this close to Iowa maybe that works the Mods are planning attacks using the other candidates against Trump having many up on the stage makes it more difficult to single him out. Hate to see fiorina or kasich , rude interrupters they are.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Sanj says:

    Gingrich read Art of the Deal, finally, and posted this

    Understanding Donald Trump

    Understanding Donald Trump
    The Washington Times
    January 8, 2016
    Newt Gingrich
    To receive Newt’s weekly newsletters, click here.
    Donald Trump is a genuine phenomenon.
    He may or may not become the Republican nominee for president.
    He may or may not win the presidency even if he becomes the nominee.
    Yet it is clear that he is a phenomenon and that any history of the 2016 presidential race will have to spend a good bit of time analyzing Trump and his impact.
    From the time he announced on June 16, Trump has dominated social and mainstream media. He dominates the conversation despite the lack of paid advertising.
    Trump says outrageous things and his supporters shrug it off. At every turn, his poll numbers continue to rise.
    As a step toward understanding this amazing performance, I spent part of the Christmas break reading his first bestseller, The Art of the Deal.
    Written in 1987, this book is a classic among American business books and has influenced a generation of entrepreneurs.
    Trump wrote The Art of the Deal when he was 41 years old and having a successful run. The book’s popularity contributed to Time Magazine’s decision to feature Donald Trump on its cover in January 1989.
    The portrait that emerges from this easy-to-read and remarkably interesting book is of an aggressive, ambitious person who is constantly pushing, constantly learning, and always seeking the next challenge.
    Reporters and analysts who are trying to understand Trump would be well served by slowing down and reading this nearly three-decade-old bestseller.
    They would discover that Donald Trump has developed a remarkable set of rules and principles that allow him to make decisions with incredible speed.
    Trump knows a lot, but what is amazing is how rapidly he figures out what he doesn’t know.
    My favorite story is of the Wollman Skating Rink in New York’s Central Park.
    The Wollman Rink was a heavily used public skating rink which had fallen into disrepair in 1980.
    New York City tried for six years to fix it, spent $13 million, and the rink still was not ready to open.
    In June of 1986 Trump, who could see the rink from his apartment, finally got tired of the embarrassment and offered to fix the rink at his own expense.
    At first the city turned him down because its bureaucracy did not want to be embarrassed by someone fixing something they couldn’t fix. Trump kept pushing and finally out of embarrassment the city gave in.
    The key part of the story is Trump’s reaction to being put in charge. He promptly recognized that he didn’t know anything about fixing a skating rink. He asked himself who built a lot of skating rinks. “Canadians!” he concluded. He found the best Canadian ice skating rink construction company.
    When the Canadians flew in to assess the situation, they were amazed at how bad the city had been at solving the problem. They assured Trump that this was an easy job.
    Trump fixed the six year embarrassment two months ahead of schedule and nearly $800,000 under-budget. (The city did end up paying for the work, and Trump donated the profits to charity.)
    After reading this chapter you begin to think that maybe Donald Trump really could build a wall along our southern border for a lot less than our current government estimates.
    The Art of the Deal is filled with stories like this — stories of common sense stories of calculated risk taking, and stories of innovation and marketing.
    Anyone who would like to better understand Donald Trump would be helped by reading this remarkable book.
    Share this page

    Liked by 18 people

    • Martin says:

      I’m going to get this book, hopefully, sometime within the next few months.

      Liked by 3 people

    • georgiafl says:

      My favorite Trump story:
      Trump was on a committee to raise money for a hospital (maybe the one in honor of his Mother) through a concert and auction.

      He arrived late, sat down and asked where they stood. The organizers said they needed millions and had a certain number of tickets for the venue and didn’t think they could do it.
      Trump said, OK, I called the President on the way over. He’s agreed to come, so we can raise the price of the tickets to $– and I’m going to donate — to the auction, so that should do it and then some. With that, he got up and left.

      The young people in the room who had never seen him operate watched with jaws and eyes wide open.

      That’s Trump. He gets things done.

      Liked by 9 people

    • MissV says:

      Thanks for this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • mnlakes says:

      Gingrich hasn’t always backed up Trump. I don’t trust him. I think he sees how big the Trump Train is and is trying to get back in our good graces just like every Congressman is going to be doing after signing that huge Budget Bill. that’s my Theory and I’m sticking to it, unless of course you disagree, then I will most likely change my mind again

      Liked by 5 people

      • Tampa2 says:

        Newt is looking to get back on the Gravy Train. Wants to be relevant again. Yet, he was the first to take on the media. Trump must’ve enjoyed that!

        Liked by 4 people

        • Tampa2 says:

          I don’t think the Treehouse is here to change your mind. I think we’re all trying to educate ourselves with ideas, thoughtfulness, and a little Jebito disdain!

          Like

      • Sanj says:

        Everyone who is in the punditry, GOPe et al who have been against Trump and are now warming up to him have an agenda. They want to be around power and the President. It’s pure selfishness, hypocrisy and short-sightedness; the main ingredients in the cesspool which is D.C.

        Liked by 3 people

      • singtune says:

        I totally Agree~! Gingrich is quite the “Operator”. & Newt is also a NWO Globalist~! No question in my mind~!

        Liked by 1 person

      • sammyhains says:

        I like Newt a lot. I was hoping he would run in 2008. I was glad he did in 2008, and he didn’t disappoint, except for the not winning part. I think Newt would be getting ready to run for his 2nd term right now if he had. I still have a lot of resentment towards Drudge over the night of the long knives, just before Florida.

        But had Newt won, then we wouldn’t have Trump running now, so I guess it all works out in an odd way.

        Liked by 1 person

    • freegz says:

      This is really well done.

      Trump:From Art of The Deal to Art of the Campaign

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3378759/posts

      Liked by 3 people

    • “Trump says outrageous things and his supporters shrug it off. At every turn, his poll numbers continue to rise.”

      I haven’t found anything Trump has said to be outrageous from the first day I heard him announce he was running for president. Everything he has said thus far sounds reasonable and I agreed with and were things I and many others have been saying ourselves.

      The ONLY thing I found outrageous was THE GOP and that they were running a BUSH again. And the Jeb Map to the White House. Now THAT was outrageous. And the GOP’s behavior towards the people of America and towards Trump I found to be OUTRAGEOUS.

      Liked by 4 people

      • NCPatrick says:

        I agree, Monique … nothing Trump has said has been outrageous to me, tho he has said some things I knew would get heat — and they did. But that is precisely what is needed in this politically correct world! We have been spoonfed b.s. for so long the truth actually sounds outrageous to some? Not to me.

        Like

    • nhtrumpster says:

      I am currently reading this book and am amazed at the rules he developed decades ago that I see him employing in the campaign. I’ll just mention one. In the second chapter he starts to expound on his use of exaggeration in deal making. He purposefully exaggerates.

      But when he exaggerates, the idea or facts he does this with are founded in a very large truth. So he he attracts interest, debate, investigation upon the underlying truth. In the end, it is the underlying truth that becomes the focus and accepted reality.

      Think of the “thousands” of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey. Without the underlying truth, the exaggeration would be an empty ploy. But because of his skillful use of this tactic and others described in the book, the whole focus of the campaign now revolves around the underlying truths he and he alone have brought to the forefront.

      He is giving a master class and the tuition is free!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Boudica says:

      There is a LOT left out of this, but the biggest thing is that Trump has had many years since then to hone his talents. I must say I have never been as amazed by anyone as I am of Trump. I loved Elvis, but I loved his God given talent, and yea the rest wasn’t bad either, but I was never one of those screaming giggly types, other than that…..it was Reagan and John Wayne, but honestly, none of those were as intriguing as Trump. Everyday he does something new to spark your interest. Everyday he sends signals, that if you have been watching closely, you know what’s coming. He is a work of art.

      Like

  6. Martin says:

    I really wish it was February 1st already. Time for the real polls.

    Liked by 6 people

    • 1hear2learn says:

      Yes!!! So close and yet so far! I.CAN’T.WAIT!, but know I must.

      Liked by 2 people

    • sammyhains says:

      Not to worry, we have 3 weeks to go and get to watch Cruz implode right on time. Cruz was the final obstacle to Trump. Trump hit Cruz with a Dim Mak death punch at just the right time.

      I had been warning about Cruz for months when I picked up that he was the Establishment’s secret weapon against Trump. Christie wasn’t the final splitter, Cruz was, and he was being used specifically to split Trump’s vote.

      Interesting though is that Rubio was a failure to launch, so the Establishment now is trying to arrange a brokered convention.

      What they want is several strong candidates splitting the vote fairly evenly and denying Trump 50%. Cruz and Rubio are both essential to this plot. Christie and Jeb are secondary players. Mainly, they need Jeb to have enough delegates to be able to remain in contention at least, but they know he is not going to be in the top 3.

      Liked by 1 person

      • gazill says:

        You think Cruz is the Establishment’s secret weapon? That is silly. Rubio, yes, Cruz, not even close. Cruz would be where Trump is with regard to the underlying GOPe powers disdain (although unlikely to gain even close to the level of traction) were it not for Trump.

        Like

      • Joe Blow says:

        Universal detestation of Bush and distrust of Pubio are the only reasons Ted’s numbers are even this “high”. It’s pretty basic. The GOP ticket is not about choice, it’s about a lack of options. It takes an actor first, a businessman second, and a politician third to be a solid C.E. in this crazy country. The last time we had that, things didn’t seem so bad.

        Like

  7. Sanj says:

    Nuff said ::

    35.think would be most effective at reversing Barack Obama’s agenda?
    (DO NOT READ LIST UNLESS REQUESTED)
    4-7 Jan 16
    N=423
    (Trump) 48% (Cruz) 21 (Rubio) 9 (Carson) 6 (Bush) 3 (Fiorina) 2 (Christie) 2 (Paul) 2 (Kasich) 1 (Huckabee) * (Santorum) – (Gilmore) – (Other) * (All) * (Don’t know) 5

    Liked by 6 people

    • sammyhains says:

      Here’s something to think about — Trump will have access to all of 0bama’s sealed documents as president, and he will be able to finally expose 0bama as the ineligible usurper he is, and can invalidate everything he did in office.

      Now is that something Ted Cruz would be able to do, since he just as ineligible as 0bama, himself?

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Thanks for the polling info Sundance! I always knew a high MOE was not as good but your explanation really helped explain why. And then showing the odds at 450,000 to 1 was awesome! There is a reason I visit this site before all others. Your level of detail and a review of multiple forms of data always amazes me. I hope you have a team to help you do all this! If not, you must have Trump’s work ethic! Haha

    It doesn’t matter how they skew the polls to get there debate lineup, Trump will do what he always does. Win the people over and destroy the competition. The majority of people know who is real and who’s for them and that’s The guy who will be front and center!

    Liked by 7 people

  9. hocuspocus13 says:

    ⭐ …a bright star… ⭐

    Liked by 2 people

  10. FIREAM 85 says:

    Thank you Sundance for your explanations and examinations.
    It would seem that this faux news Iowa poll without the large MoE would be more or less representative to the early Dec. CNN Iowa poll—Trump 33…Cruz 20.
    Trumps got IOWA!

    Liked by 2 people

  11. KBR says:

    I appreciate the clear way the poll cheating is done. I kinda wish we didn’t have these fake polls on the “game board” though, without some symbol saying they are faked polls. Seeing them like that, even knowing they are deliberately faked is sad.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sanj says:

      Just wait until they get desperate in South Carolina and start using push polls. Questions like, “Since Trump is a racist, pedophile, fake businessman; Can you trust him to be President and watch your kids?” ….Poll results “TRUMP drops to 1% in South Carolina”….just wait it’s coming with the other long knives

      Liked by 5 people

      • Raffaella says:

        If Trump wins Iowa (I believe he will), this is all over and the whole country will know it. They will not have the opportunity to lie about polls after Iowa. No one would believe them.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. NJF says:

    Great analysis. Thanks so much for making it easy to understand. I can not believe we’re going to have 9 on the.debate stage again!!!!

    Liked by 2 people

    • USA Patriot says:

      The more the better for Trump since debate is not his strong point. The media fools though don’t comprehend this — silver tongues but very low street savvy.

      Like

  13. KBR says:

    ^^Supposed to say “appreciate the clear way Sundance explained how the poll cheating is done.”
    My fingers fly faster than my brain sometimes, sorry.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. angie b says:

    Has anyone noticed Limbaugh’s commentary tends to talk of Trump supporters kind of stigmatizing in a a round about way?

    Liked by 3 people

    • WeThePeople2016 says:

      I don’t listen to Rush when he goes on a tangent on Cruz. Every now and then he shows his true colors and says something “off” about Trump supporters to which I have to question what he meant by that.

      Liked by 1 person

    • peachteachr says:

      I heard a little of Rush this afternoon. The caller had registered as an Independent and was a strong Trump supporter. I didn’t hear any hint of disdain from Rush; I heard amusement. Rush asked if anything Trump did could change the voter’s opinion and the answer was no. The man said there was NOTHING that the dems or repubs could do to change his mind. He was a former republican.

      Liked by 2 people

    • parteagirl says:

      Rush sounds like a split personality lately. I’m sure it’s because he knows he has listeners that support Trump and listeners that support Cruz, and doesn’t want to alienate any of them. He’ll praise Trump, then he’ll praise Cruz. One day he said that Trump is hated, but Cruz is feared, then a few days later said that Cruz is hated and Trump is feared.

      BUT, (and maybe it’s just me,) what I hear is that while he admires Cruz, he sounds genuinely excited by Trump and his ability to slay Enemy #1- the media. He said before Christmas that he always wondered what would happen if a candidate took his advice (regarding the media) -if it would really work- and that he’s been surprised that it has worked this well. He said (Dec. 4 show) that Trump owns the media and that he’s never seen it done in his lifetime. As a media guy himself, he sounded in awe of Trump’s ability to do that. Just my take.

      Liked by 1 person

      • georgiafl says:

        Trump got off to a right start with the media…he put them in the proper place, showing them that he is master, they are serfs. He put the media on notice that they would have to respect him and be truthful or else. He did not even hold back with Megyn Kelly.
        It was kind of like a dog trainer handles/disciplines dogs.

        It was beautiful to behold and welcome after all the media dishonesty and propaganda with Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown.

        Liked by 2 people

      • USA Patriot says:

        Rush’s boy is GOPe Cruz — count on it. But he needs to keep throwing Trump bones to keep his audience. Notice Rush hardly talks about Trump being dead right on the American-First issues — now I no longer listen to him much now but when I do Rush seems to always emphasize Trump’s clever strategy. But here is a secret Rush: Trump’s non PC strategy is secondary to his resonating Pro-American message and is why Cruz-boy is “me too”.

        Like

      • churchill says:

        That’s my take as well, parteagirl. He seems genuinely to like Trump and has liked Cruz for a long time. To me, he shows both full respect. We can live with that, can’t we?

        Like

        • runthetable says:

          Three decades he has told listeners how great America would be if we had a real leader like Mr. Trump.

          Liked by 1 person

        • parteagirl says:

          Absolutely, churchill. Rush is above all a businessman. And just as Trump has donated to Rs and Ds through the years for the sake of his business, Rush is praising both Trump and Cruz for the sake of his.

          Like

      • AZ Gulch says:

        I have e-mailed Rush a few times when he goes over the line for Cruz, and have politely reminded him that 50-60% of his audience is in the tank for Trump. Plus he was boring, and I want to entertained. That is his job, otherwise I change the channel.

        He seems to back off Cruz for a few days after my e-mails.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. R-C says:

    These annoying, agenda-driven ‘push’ polls. Head shaking, eyes rolling here.

    When will FOX finally admit what everyone else already knows? –How much longer, do you reckon, that FOX will continue to insult our intelligence? (I suppose the answer involves the big-money globalists who support that entire cabal–FOX will give in when they are told to give in, and not a moment sooner. Until then, the entire staff over there will continue to embarrass themselves on the air with their demonstrably BAD pronouncements, based upon skewed numbers.

    (Hey FOX–despite your best efforts, we’re only getting stronger. We see through your games, and they are NOT working. It’s Trump in 2016.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • TheTorch says:

      Yes agenda polls are annoying but they are also useful, as they tell us not only what the narrative will be, but also confirms the game plan.

      Excellent work Sundance.

      If Trump wins IOWA and I think he will despite the make up of the electorate, due to the turnout which I am expecting to be considerably higher than normal, and by taking IOWA he will likely run the table, which would be wonderful to watch unfold.

      Liked by 5 people

    • justfactsplz says:

      Rupert Murdoch who is one of the main globalists runs Fox so he will never support Trump. He has way to much money to lose. He needs to go back across the big pond and take Fox with him.

      Liked by 3 people

  16. Tampa2 says:

    In statistics, MoE is huge without regard to demographics, age, income, etc. Today, the agenda-driven statisticians know how to ask questions, what media to use, who to ask the questions, when to ask the questions, and how to manipulate the responses. I trust no polls whatsoever. Graduate studies 101.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. NHVoter says:

    Very interesting.

    Meanwhile

    Liked by 1 person

  18. MissV says:

    Some pretty spiffy parsing of the data, sundance. Now I understand better how the polls get cooked.

    Meanwhile, the pundits and the media and the politicians twist themselves into knots to pretend the Trump effect isn’t real.

    Liked by 1 person

    • KitKat says:

      Ever since I didn’t trust the polls that said Obama would beat Romney, I’ve learned to accept all polls at face value, and take each one as a prod to improved action.

      Like

  19. WeThePeople2016 says:

    This is not surprising of FOX news. They did this the past 2 election cycles to push the GOPe candidate. They are trying to make you think that Cruz is winning Iowa, but they have to do sneaky and false data reporting to do it.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. Melania for 1st Lady says:

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Rene says:

    Since these are agenda polls, I recommend we watch something else for signs of where the polls REALLY are. Candidates desperation. If they are doing well, they would be calm and not make too many mistakes. If the internal polls and on the ground talk is negative they will start to be desperate. Seen by more attacks on the front runner. And inevitably some mistakes.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Sanj says:

    I just spent a few minutes posting on Breitbart. Levin has called all of us a-holes and the Cruzbots have gone nuts over the birther issue. Tweaking them is like shooting fish in a barrel because they are truly scared about the political fallout and are generally humorless like Cruz

    Liked by 5 people

  23. jackmac says:

    What I would like to see is Trump boycott the foxnews debate. It won’t be a debate in any sense of the word. We all know it’s going to be “try to tear down Trump night”. Fox would take a big ratings hit. Serves them right.

    Liked by 2 people

    • mariner says:

      That would be emotionally satisfying but disastrous.

      Trump needs to be getting his message out to as many people as possible at every opportunity. “Debates” are just non-paid publicity. He’s been making hay at these debates, so don’t fix what ain’t broke.

      In addition boycotting the debate would allow the moderators and his opponents to say anything about him, without the opportunity to respond.

      Liked by 3 people

    • jackphatz says:

      He can’t do that! He is needed to show all the viewers just how bad all the others are.

      Liked by 5 people

    • mnlakes says:

      I hear ya but there are still people out there that pick their candidate from the debates. Trump is getting so much better at this, I think he needs to do it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • sam says:

      That’s not a good idea, they will say Trump doesn’t know his stuff and scared. Trump Train is almost to the finish line, lets keep it up. Lets put more coal into the engine and make it go faster!

      Liked by 2 people

    • jackmac says:

      Ok maybe it wouldn’t be a good Idea. Thanks for your opinions.

      Like

    • georgiafl says:

      Trump will be more ready for them than they will be for him.

      He will do something unpredictable and flummox them into major belly-flops.

      It will be a sight to behold.

      Do not fear.

      Liked by 3 people

    • sevenwheel says:

      We all know it’s going to be “try to tear down Trump night”.

      Actually, it’s going to be “epic failure at trying to tear down Trump night.” Again. Trump would be a fool to boycott the debate when we all know full well that he’s going to own it.

      Like

  24. Excellent analysis, Sundance! You’re the man. Let us never forget, too the polls of Matt Bevin. Realclear Politics had him behind woefully. A down right loser. And look who clobbered them all.

    Mr. Trump will bring the hammer with him to Iowa though. It’s a good thing he knows a something about casinos because he’s going to run the table.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Tampa2 says:

    For example, if 100,000 people randomly sampled said they would vote for Trump, and 52% said they would, that would mean the entire population, including all age, race, incomes, etc. were in it to win it for Trump, then the sample size was inclusive based on the randomness. A plus/minus of less than 1% MoE . I will gladly accept any corrections to my statistics education. It was, after all, nearly 40 years ago!

    Like

    • churchill says:

      For example, if 100,000 people randomly sampled said they would vote for Trump,

      OK, I take this to mean that the pollster asked 100,000 randomly selected people who they would vote for and they all said Trump.

      and 52% said they would,

      OK, now I’m lost.

      that would mean the entire population, including all age, race, incomes, etc. were in it to win it for Trump

      Hopelessly lost.

      then the sample size was inclusive based on the randomness. A plus/minus of less than 1% MoE*

      ?

      Tampa, I ain’t being snarky, I really want to get a grip of this stuff. Cross my heart and hope to die.

      Like

      • Tampa2 says:

        Churchill, I screwed up the first sentence. Should have read: “If a 100,000 people were randomly sampled, and 52% said they would vote for Trump…”. The result of the poll would tend to suggest that the entire population (whatever ethnicity, income, religion, etc.) was 52% in favor of Trump. The greater the sample size, the lower the Margin of Error. When you see sample sizes in the 100’s, don’t waste your time and move along. In political polls, if you get sample sizes of 2,500 to 4,000, you’ve got something a little more meaningful but still too small to indicate a serious conclusion. Hope that clears it up a bit. Sorry for the terribly written first sentence.

        Like

  26. giddyup says:

    read on lame cherry a few years ago, they manipulate the actual vote to come out close to the polls. No one would be the wiser.

    Liked by 1 person

    • mariner says:

      That’s the thing that really scares me.

      I never believed Obama actually won the 2008 election, in the sense of getting more votes from living humans who themselves voted only once. Certainly not the 2012 election.

      I didn’t buy the line that conservatives stayed home and gave us Obama. I believe votes cast for Romney were counted for Obama, in numbers that made the scam believable [enough].

      Massive, YUUUUUGE vote fraud is the order of the day, and now we have both wings of the UniParty openly working together to screw us. If they believe they have a way to pull it off they’ll do it this year.

      I can only talk to people about voting Trump, vote myself, and hope and pray that enough others do so to persuade the UniParty to back off.

      Liked by 5 people

    • I have said that for many years. That’s why they make up narratives and run in the media then they fudge the polls to pretend to match that narrative. They say you have to really win big in order for them to not be able to cheat.

      Let’s not be naive this election. Just know they WILL try to cheat. Period.

      If Trump is as smart as I think he is, then he’s got that figured in. I don’t know how exactly. But this will be a very good way to see just how smart and tough and cunning he is.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. Russ B. says:

    Great information, Sundance. Listening to Special Report earlier this evening, I somehow had a feeling that FOX could well be playing games with their polling results. Now, after reading your analysis, I see where my suspicion was justified.
    My main concern now is Iowa. I feel fairly confident for Trump in NH. But with Iowa…well, I’m not feeling greatly confident. Not depressed–just unsure. I wish Sundance had given a final estimation of where the Iowa race stands as of today with Trump and Cruz. I don’t pull that information out of the analysis. I would like to know his view on what the actual state of the race is today there.
    And, yes, I am new at this with The Last Refuge

    Liked by 1 person

    • parteagirl says:

      Welcome, Russ!

      Like

    • 1American1st says:

      Russ –
      They only polled 504 people. There are more people than that in the front row of one of Trump’s rallies. Unless someone rigs the computers in Iowa, I expect Trump will win. Keep the faith.

      Obama, the Commie Democrats & the GOP establishment have let America nearly run aground. We need a new captain at the helm to change directions soon because we are taking on water fast & the middle class is getting tired of bailing.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 1American1st says:

      Welcome, Russ, to one of the very few portals to sanity left on the Internet.

      Like

  28. Sanj says:

    I taped Newsmax TV tonight, which I normally don’t watch, because they were covering the speech. I watched Malzberg’s lead in and lead out and he and the two guests were tripping over themselves with praise of Trump. It was fun to watch a few “fence sitters” on Trump get it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • KitKat says:

      It’s amazing how many people who are negative about Trump have obviously never watched a single one of his speeches, but grab their perceptions from short sound bytes and biased opinionators.

      Like

  29. Tampa2 says:

    My ex told me thousands of people voting for Romney showed up at her election precinct. The next day, 340 voted for Romney, over 7,000 for BHO. In Florida near Tampa.

    Liked by 3 people

    • KitKat says:

      Have you seen the movie An American Story (The Battle of Athens)? It’s a true story about election fraud, well worth watching.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I am aware of the cheating that went on with Obama, some so overt they even stopped hiding it. I’m thinking as smart and cunning as Trump is that he will have some kind of safety mechanism or something in place.

      Would be great if everyone was instructed to wear a certain color or hat or something and then they filmed it. Would be easy to count the people just from the film! Ok, I know that is far-fetched, but Trump is brilliant and is in this to WIN. He will have something in place and it will be brilliant. Certainly if he noticed the Trojan Horse when no one else did, he would know the cheating machine is awaiting him.

      Like

  30. tz says:

    The only problem with Iowa is that it is a quirky caucus state, not plain voter primaries.
    Even so, it is between Trump and Cruz. It is still 3 weeks away. Cruz has a Hillary/Heidi problem, among others. Cruz might be able to poach voters from other candidates with a similar profile (Huckabee, Paul, JeBush, etc.). But there will be counterpoaching and counter-attack-ads.

    I might otherwise like Cruz, but for the “questions which must not be asked”.

    Trump is neither a weathervane or a nuancing weasel. At least IF I disagree, I have something hard and solid to disagree with, even if Trump is pragmatic, not a squishy amoeba that squishes from right to left to avoid taking sides.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Nope2GOPe says:

    We should also consider the potential misinformation, or misunderstanding surrounding registration requirements & open/closed primaries per state for the lo of crowd, and it could be worse. I think we need to help facilitate voter education by social media, and all other means possible to ensure people aren’t turned away from the primaries.

    Like

  32. Tampa2 says:

    Oops. 1,340 for Romney.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Joan Kromphold says:

    This article is saying to not believe anything in the last Fox poll. I can’t keep track of all the numbers and how they figured out what Fox was doing but I trust these people to tell the truth. Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 01:59:27 +0000 To: jtaz48@hotmail.com

    Like

  34. We know they are not going to let Trump just win. He will have to pass a thousand more tests. This isn’t even dirty yet. Wait until we get to the convention.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. kinthenorthwest says:

    OK I have had it…There are Cruz supporters saying that since Obama broke the birther eligibility rule, whats the big deal if Cruz breaks the law too.
    Out country has TOTALLY gone Bat$HlT Crazy.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 1American1st says:

      KIN –

      I totally agree with you!

      And the Rubio deal is even more bizarre. His parents were Communist Cuba citizens when he was born in Miami & didn’t become American citizens until he was 4 years old. Neither of his parents were legally Americans, so how is he eligible? More of that Anchor Baby bull$hit?

      I’m voting for an American with no foreign hangups.

      TRUMP 2016

      Liked by 3 people

      • kinthenorthwest says:

        If we don’t get Trump, our country is going down in flames in a $HlTTY Handbag..

        Liked by 1 person

      • I will absolutely NEVER vote for any candidate who has citizenship duality or who was born in a foreign country, unless they were born on a military base to American born parents who were always American citizens and only temporary stationed at a US TERRITORY and if the child was not raised there in the foreign country! I won’t vote for any DUAL CITIZEN or DUAL PASSPORT OWNER either. I won’t vote for anyone who currently and frequently speaks a foreign language even at HOME.

        LOOK WHAT WE GOT WITH OBAMA: A man torn between many allegiances.

        LOOK AT CRUZ & RUBIO: Both torn between their home countries and/or parent’s home countries! Rubio going over to la raza TV and doing interviews for foreigners. Even Jeb campaigning in SPANISH.

        The founding fathers are right. And there is a very good reason why they want a natural born citizen and that doesn’t include those who skate in by some technicality. I may live in ITALY but did NOT go through the entire process for citizenship there. Why? Because I am an American born! There truly is a bond on the soil in which a person is born. I never realized just how strong that was until I came back to US. It’s REAL.

        Liked by 6 people

        • jackmac says:

          LIKE
          That was well put MoniQueMoniCat. I live about 50 yards from where my parents were living from the time I was born until age 3. There is a special bond to that place. Only parts of the house are there now. I can’t explain it but I feel different when I am there, So the country you were born in would really make a difference. You would feel a stronger allegiance to the country you were born in instead of another. I enjoy reading you posts you have a unique insight. Thanks

          Like

  36. 1American1st says:

    My biggest problem with this FOX Iowa poll is that it is only 504 voters! THAT IS NOTHING!
    Trump gets 5,000 to 20,000+ supporters at his rallies. So why does Fox keep dragging this poll of 504 voters out…day after day and day & night? WHY? I think we all know why. They are still on their ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN, that’s why.

    Watched Fox for a short time this evening. There it was… the Iowa poll, along with 2 guests & Krautheimer….. all trashing Trump or at least promoting Cruz & Rubio. Had to turn it off.

    Fox just refuses to admit that Trump is leading “their” picks by a huge margin. Where did they even find these 504 voters, behind Hillary’s campaign office?

    It did sound like they finally gave up on Jeb!

    TRUMP 2016

    Liked by 3 people

  37. yohio says:

    Did anyone see this article and poll? Very interesting for dems https://t.co/uDoauSlj8u

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Doodahdaze says:

    10% MOE? Good Grief.

    Liked by 3 people

  39. The Des Moines Register was on some interview show saying Iowa has not seen much if any new voter registration nor change of party registration thus far to add doubt to Trump’s claim that he will be bringing in NEW VOTERS and DEMS switching to vote for Trump.

    They purposely failed to mention that voters can switch their parties on the same day as the Caucus right at the door. I found other sites that say even NEW VOTERS can register same day at the door too.

    If this is true then these Iowa polls are way off not only for reasons Sundance cites, but for new voters and Dems who will be switching to Republican.

    This is what I have found online. If this is true then that is fantastic for Trump. But please, if anyone knows this to be different or incorrect, please correct. Especially in question is #3 since I didn’t find anything about deadlines for new voters for CAUCUSES, only deadlines for primary voting and general election voting:

    1) Iowa voters can register online here: https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/voterregistration.html

    2) Iowa voters who are already registered can change their party same day as Caucus at the door:
    https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterinformation/regfaq.html
    https://votesmart.org/elections/voter-registration/IA#.VpCS01KrEQo

    3) Those who are not registered with the party may register at the door, so caucus participants need not be registered voters ahead of time.
    http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/2016-iowa-caucuses/#xBKrfx5GsxmDKh5v.99

    Liked by 1 person

  40. NJF says:

    http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

    This is an eye opener for me. Neither Cruz or waterboy are natural born citizens.

    It’ll be hilarious if both Cruz & waterboy are knocked out over THIS issue!

    Liked by 2 people

  41. Pingback: Fox Poll: Trump Surging in NH, More Than Double's Rubio In Second Place - Daily Pundit

  42. alegenoa says:

    I expect them to cook the polls results in many ways, sure. But, as far as margins of error go, I just don’t understand your argument. Of course you may deliberately introduce a source for error by trivially under-representing a segment of the population, like as you said, by polling less people under a certain age than required. But a MOE must take into account many more sources of uncertainty, right? For instance, your sample could under-represent a certain income bracket, or be flawed in the geographic distribution of people contacted.
    You can’t just infer something regarding age distribution based on a MOE.

    Like

  43. georgiafl says:

    This is just the beginning of the dirty tricks through the Primaries, to the Nomination Convention, through the General and Beyond. Even after Inauguration, there will be ruthless ideologues and networks of crooks and embedded fraud to battle.

    Like

  44. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    The polls are obviously stated to give the desired results not what the people are really thinking.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s