Saturday, February 20, 2016

THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE, NBC TV, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL AND MARIST COLLEGE ENGAGE IN POLLING DECEPTION FOR THE SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN PRIMARY


Two recent surveys on the eve of the South Carolina Republican Primary reveal significant flaws such, which invalidate the results.

The principal owner of the Wall Street Journal happens to be Rupurt Murdoch. Murdoch is the principal owner of FOX News. Murdoch seems to be against the candidacy of Donald Trump. Perhaps this is why his survey uses flawed methods.

As it is, already, in THE DES MOINES REGISTER AND BLOOMBERG COMMIT POLLING FRAUD ON DECEMBER 12, 2015, FOR THE UPCOMING GOP CAUCUS and WHY EVERY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION POLL FOR 2016 YOU SHALL SEE OR HEAR WILL BE WRONG, I have shown you significant flaws in how polling has been done, especially for nationwide polls

Let's look at two wrong polls.

The Augusta Chronicle

Claimed Result: Trump 27, Rubio 24, Cruz 19, Bush 11, Kasich 7, Carson 8
Claimed Winner Margin: Trump +3
Status: Invalid survey results
Why?: The sample is not drawn at random from telephone numbers who then get qualified first as adults, then as likely voters. Assertion of definitely voting and exclusion based on lack of recall of polling station tainted sample.

Flawed Methodology: Likely Republican primary voters were selected at random from a list of registered voters. Only voters determined likely to attend the 2016 South Carolina Republican primary were included in the sample.

Two questions served as selection variables. The first question asked whether the respondent intends to attend the primary on February 20th; all responses other than “definitely” or “voted absentee” were excluded from the dataset. The
second question asked whether the respondent knew where their primary will be held (e.g. church, school); all responses of “I don’t know” (for those who did not vote absentee) were excluded from the dataset.

NBC/WSJ/Marist

Claimed Result: Trump 28, Rubio 15, Cruz 23, Bush 13, Kasich 9, Carson 9
Claimed Winner Margin: Trump +5
Status: Invalid survey results
Why?: The sample is not drawn from the first adult contacted regardless of sex. Instead, the survey targeted the youngest male first.

As well, the randomness of the survey became further eroded when matching against another sample with embedded error.

Also the survey is spread over a few days, which calls into question voting based on different news about candidates.

Flawed Methodology:
This survey of 2,567 adults was conducted February 15th through February 17th, 2016 by The Marist Poll sponsored and funded in partnership with NBC News and The Wall Street Journal. Adults 18 years of age and older residing in the state of South Carolina were interviewed in English by telephone using live interviewers.

Landline telephone numbers were randomly selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the state of South Carolina from ASDE Survey Sampler, Inc. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this landline sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers from Survey Sampling International.

Respondents in the household were randomly selected by first asking for the youngest male. 

Both samples were matched by telephone number to a voter registration list for the state. Voter information was appended to each matched case. Assistance was provided by Luce Research for data collection and L2 for voter registration information.

After the interviews were completed, the two samples were combined and balanced to reflect the 2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates for age, gender, income, and region except for race, which is from the 2010 census.

Results are statistically significant within ±1.9 percentage points. There are 2,282 registered voters. The results for this subset are statistically significant within ±2.1 percentage points.  Among registered voters, 823 had a phone match in the voter file and 1,459 did not. The results for these subsets are statistically significant within ±3.4 percentage points and ±2.6 percentage points, respectively. There are 1,227 voters in the potential Republican primary electorate. The potential Republican primary electorate in South Carolina includes all voters who prefer to vote in the Republican presidential primary and those who identify as Republicans or Republican leaning independents without a primary preference.

There are 836 voters in the potential Democratic primary electorate. The potential Democratic primary electorate in South Carolina includes all voters who prefer to vote in the Democratic presidential primary and those who identify as Democrats or Democratic leaning independents without a primary preference. The results for these subsets are statistically significant within ±2.8 percentage points and ±3.4 percentage points, respectively.

There are 722 likely Republican primary voters and 425 likely Democratic primary voters defined by a probability turnout model which determines the likelihood respondents will participate in the 2016 South Carolina Republican/Democratic Presidential Primary based upon their chance of vote, interest in the election, and past election participation. The results for these subsets are statistically significant within ±3.6 percentage points and ±4.8 percentage points, respectively. The error margin was not adjusted for sample weights and increases for cross-tabulations.

POLLING DONE RIGHT

The SC House GOP has done polling right.

Claimed Result: Trump 34, Rubio 18, Cruz 19, Bush 12, Kasich 8, Carson 5
Claimed Winner Margin: Trump +15
Why?: Respondents were contacted on the same day. The questions were asked in the same way. The calls were placed at random. The first adult contacted was the accepted contact.

Solid Methodology:

Likely Republican presidential primary voters were selected at random from a list of registered voters based on party participation and registration date. Household ages and locations were extracted as well from this list. In excess of 180,000 households were called over the duration of the poll. Each household participant was asked to opt-in to the survey if they planned to vote in the 2016 SC presidential primary.                                                                            

Using automated voice response technology allows each participant to hear the questions exactly the same way, from the same voice, spoken with the same tone and nuance. Calls are placed to randomly-selected phone numbers through a stratified process that insures approrpiate geographic representation. These calls were placed from 10:30am to 8:30pm local time on Thursday, February 18th.

Read more ...

Monday, February 1, 2016

BIG WINNERS IN THE 2016 IOWA CAUCUSES — TRUMP, RUBIO, SANDERS. BIG LOSERS — CRUZ, CLINTON.


Iowans held their caucuses this evening to apportion delegates for the nominating conventions of the Republican and Democratic parties for the 2016 United States of America presidential election.

Running as Republicans, the big winners tonight are Donald Trump and Marco Rubio. Though Ted Cruz came out on top, Ted ends up being a big loser. However, the biggest loser ends up being Jeb Bush.


Republican Party





 At a paltry 2.8%, Jeb Bush gained one delegate. Worse, Jeb lost the establishment tonight. Jeb is not a viable candidate.

Trump won big tonight, or in Trump fans parlance, "yuge." The Manhattanite New Yorker had quite a strong showing in the Christianity bible belt state.

Americans are fed up with open-borders internationalism and are fed up with trade deals internationalism that kills high-paying USA jobs. That sentiment came out in tonight's results.

And in these works I showed you how Trump understands working-class Americans and their strong desire to end internationalism:




Beginning in October, I showed you the attacks on Trump in these works:



I revealed the secret sauce to Donald Trump beginning in October and why he is winning.




Tonight's results don't bode well for the natural-born Canadian Ted Cruz.  Cruz spent much resources in Iowa. Cruz masterminded Iowa. Yet, Ted Cruz barely squeaked by Trump.

Cruz is the recognized holier-than-thou bible thumper from the slate of Republican candidates. Yet, Cruz could manage only a 3.3% lead over Trump, a guy who most believe is a marginal Christian. As it is, it's quite likely Trump hasn't stepped into a church since childhood except for weddings. Cruz even had his dad campaigning, an evangelical Christian minister.

As the recognized bible thumper of the field, Cruz needed to sweep the Iowa caucus. A 10-point first place finish would have made a statement for Cruz. Instead, his squeak-by victory shows that likely he cannot appeal to most Americans.

Cruz has bigger problems. As I have shown, Ted Cruz cannot legally swear the oath of office for the presidency of the United States of America.




Keep in mind that in 1980, Reagan came in second in Iowa only 2.1% behind George Herbert Walker Bush. Reagan was the outsider candidate running for the Republican nomination in 1980. The party establishment loathed Reagan and wanted their man George Herbert Walker Bush.

In 2008, Mike Huckabee, a former baptist minister and former governor thumped the eventual Republican nominee Mitt Romney by 9.2 percentage points.

The other Republican candidates need to drop out — Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, Huckabee, Christie, Santorum, Gilmore. None managed three percent of the vote. None finished better than sixth place. Most of all, none picked up delegates.

While the Iowa Republican Caucus might not pick the winner of the GOP nomination — Iowans didn't in 1980, 1988, and 2008 — consistently they have identified the losers. No one who has come in less than fourth in Iowa has won the GOP nomination going back to 1976.

For the Democratic Party, the big shock is Bernie Sanders coming in a tie for delegates with the presumed nominee, Hillary Clinton. Keep in mind that Sanders is a Brooklynite New Yorker who was raised a Jew and who now lives in what most perceive as socialist Vermont.

Hillary Clinton is at least a professed Christian. However, as I showed you in STAND BY YOUR HILLARY? HILLARY, LIES, EMAIL SHENANIGANS, WORK SHENANIGANS. WHY VOTE FOR HILLARY?, Hillary has big problems.


Democratic Party



Although almost all pundits are slack-jawed over Trump and Sanders, I am not. In ARE BERNIE SANDERS AND DONALD TRUMP A SURPRISE OR ARE PUNDITS STUPID? THE SHAKE-UP OF USA POLITICS CONTINUES. ARE NEW PARTIES EMERGING?, I showed you what is happening in the USA.


Read more ...

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

POLITICIANS ARE STUPID. THEY SPOUT SELFISH, STUPID SLOGANS. THE 2016 U.S. POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS IS IDIOCY AS USUAL. SO WHAT IS THE SECRET TO A GREAT SLOGAN?

Well, today, we have one year to go until someone gets sworn in as the next POTUS (for more on Obama, check out 365 DAYS TILL OBAMA'S REMOVAL. WHAT HAS OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY MEANT? WHO HAS OBAMA BEEN?)

There has been a scramble by many vying to be nominated as the candidate for the Republican Party while only a few showed up to ask for the Democratic Party nomination.

Always, candidates come forth with their rallying slogan, the words, which they say define them. Let's have a look at each slogan including those who have since dropped out.

First, let's look at the self-centered candidates. These are the it's-all-about-me candidates. These kinds of slogans are horrible.



There is a cardinal rule in advertising. The advertiser must answer WIIFM — what is in it for me. No one buys because a seller brags about himself.


  • Hillary for America. ~ Hillary Clinton
  • Jeb Can Fix It. ~ Jeb Bush
  • Telling It Like It Is. ~ Chris Christie
  • Kasich for Us. ~ John Kasich
Hillary Clinton's is inoffensive drivel. Who cares if Hillary is for America? All Americans are for America.

The Chris Christie slogan implies Chris as in Chris Christie is telling it like it is. Who cares what Chris is doing? Chris fails to answer how telling it like it is helps us.


Jeb Bush came out with two slogans. His first one, Jeb! has been mocked as ¡Jeb!. The mockery implied Jeb is for illegal aliens who sneak into the USA "because they love" us as he claimed. 

Jeb's first slogan is so self-absorbed that it it should be clear to all that Jeb lives in a me-bubble. Jeb's other slogan is mere bravado. Jeb fails to ask us what we want fixed.

John Kasich errs much in the same way as Hillary Clinton. However, Kasich presumes that he constitutes the us along with anyone else. 

Here are the self-centered slogans from the dropout candidates:


  • Leadership You Can Trust. ~ Jim Webb
  • Gilmore for America. ~ Jim Gilmore
  • Ready to Be Commander-In-Chief on Day One. ~ Lindsey Graham

Next, there are candidates that preach a message of meaningless abstraction.


  • From Hope to Higher Ground. ~ Mike Huckabee
  • Reigniting the Promise for America. ~ Ted Cruz
  • A New American Century. ~ Marco Rubio
  • Heal. Inspire. Revive. ~ Dr. Ben Carson
  • Restore the American Dream for Hardworking Families. ~ Rick Santorum
Looking at the publicly-expressed stupidity of these slogans, all should ask themselves these: What is higher ground? What was promised? Isn't a century 100 years? Heal from what? Revive from what? What does the American dream mean? What if someone isn't hardworking?

Here are the meaningless abstraction slogans from the dropout candidates:


  • Fresh Ideas for America. ~ Lincoln Chafee
  • Rebuild the American Dream. ~ Martin O’Malley
  • Believe Again. ~ Bobby Jindal
  • Reform. Growth. Safety. ~ Scott Walker

And then there is Carly Fiorina who preaches a hybrid message of meaningless abstraction and her being self-centered. 
  • Carly for America. Conservative. Outside. Leader. ~ Carly Fiorina


Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul try to tap into the odiousness of politics. However, such slogans fail to inspire anyone to do the exact act needed — vote. Paul's is especially clumsy because he throws in meaningless abstraction of the American dream.  Worse, Sanders sounds like he wants to to overthrow the USA.







  • A Political Revolution Is Coming. ~ Bernie Sanders
  • Defeat the Washington Machine. Unleash the American Dream. ~ Rand Paul
Dropout George Pataki also tried the lame attempt at tapping into the ugliness of politics, which few like.
  • People Over Politics. ~ George Pataki
One of the strangest and stupidest of all slogans is the one from the earliest dropout Rick Perry. Rick's made it sounds as if you were trouble if you would have voted for him.

  • We Must Do Right and Risk the Consequences. ~ Rick Perry

And here is the winning slogan from a slew of stinky ones: 
Make America Great Again. ~ Donald Trump



There is so much wrapped up in Trump's slogan. Trump's slogan lets anyone see what she or he wants to see. Trump can make the USA great. By voting, the voter can make America great. 

Trump taps into the underdog myth that is prevalent in American lore. Being an underdog who prevails is a recurring story of Americans. Such American lore has its roots in the War for Independence, World War 2 and sports.

One way for you to understand slogans is to play a fill-in-the-blank game. The two tools you can use are these:


  • If you vote for me, I will ... 
  • When you vote for me, we will ...
Why does Trump's slogan trump the others? Play a fill-in-the-blank game. Let's compare Hillary to Trump.

First Hillary:


  • If you vote for me, I will [be] Hillary for America.
  • When you vote for me, we will [be] Hillary for America.
Next Sanders:

  • If you vote for me, I will [be the cause of] a Political Revolution [that] Is Coming. 
  • When you vote for me, we will [be the cause of] a Political Revolution [that] Is Coming. 

And now Trump:

  • If you vote for me, I will Make America Great Again.
  • When you vote for me, we will Make America Great Again.


Of all the slogans, only Trump's implies problem solved, better times ahead.

What politicians are trying to do is change attitudes of would-be voters. Attitude is how anyone leans toward another. Attitude arises from beliefs about the likelihood of winning a wanted payoff by doing something.

Rhetoric is about saying what others need to hear. Good rhetoric will take a performance act and make it seem like merely a descriptive act.

A fight has combatants who are trying to win, to beat each other. An argument is a try to win over others to do what you want, to get them to yield to you, to commit to you, to get your way.

There are three ways to argue:

  1. Logos — arguing by arranging facts that imply logic.
  2. Ethos — arguing by one's character, one's reputation matching decorum of the group, that is, matching the expectation of others in tone, manners and looks, trying to fit in.
  3. Pathos — arguing by what others are feeling by leveraging sympathy" showing the same feeling as others, emoting as they emote.
Time is such an important element in the way one talks. There are three ways to talk:
  1. Blame — it's past-tense forensics that tries to hold someone accountable.
  2. Morals — it's now-tense that either bonds or cleaves persons in debating the merits of the existence of anything
  3. Choice — it's future-tense speak that gives choices and future payoffs.

Only the language of choice, language of the future can motivate anyone to act. What decides between a yes and a no is the interests of someone either as he sees them already or as you play up his interests in your talk.

The true secret to selling is this — the sales pitch must reflect what the plain man or woman believes rather than what you believe. As the smart businessman always aims at sales, the smart politician aims at votes.

Smarter persuaders make those persuaded believe that what they are about to do is by their own decisions. All want to believe they decide without any assistance. Would be customers and would be voters should be made to feel they are not forced to accept ideas. Rather they should be made to feel that in so doing, they act independently and do what it is they wish to do.

Words have no worth whatever except that words represent ideas in the minds of those who hear or see them. Words merely trigger thoughts already present in the minds of others.

The means to anyone's heart is suggestion. There can be no statements of fact. Words must trigger through suggestion. No one was ever reasoned into buying.

Smarter persuaders never sell things. Instead smarter persuaders sells ideas about things. Often, goods do not get delivered until after the sale completes. Politics is like this exactly.


If I were writing slogans, I would write this:


Your vote. And a Better USA Ahead for You.™


In persuading, you can appeal effectively to the vanity of either a woman or a man. With your vote, my slogan appeals by vanity to anyone, making her or him feel important. My slogan acknowledges ownership and power of the voter.

No one ever buys without motive. All must see a gain by their act. My slogan appeals to one one of the strongest motives — personal advantage. A better USA implies a gain to anyone who partakes in a better USA.

My slogan in its entirety is suggestion that leads rather than pushes. It lets voters believe their actions are theirs alone that arise from free thought.



Read more ...

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

RAND PAUL REFUSES TO SIT AT THE KIDDIE TABLE. HE SHOULD BE JOINED BY ¡JEB!, CHRISTIE, HUCKABEE, SANTORUM, FIORINA, AND JOHN "IN OHIO" KASICH

Yesterday, in RAND PAUL BANISHED TO THE KIDDIES TABLE. THE LIBERTARIAN MOMENT PASSED WITH THEIR GAY MARRIAGE AND LEGAL POT VICTORIES, I showed you the many reasons Rand Paul would make a bad president at this time in his life. Besides, it is so unlikely that Paul would have the right appeal to entice white, no college degree Americans into voting booths much less vote for him.

Rand Paul continues to whine about his exclusion for the upcoming Republican Party debate. In fairness, there is a ring of truth to his whining.

Most of the candidates are not wanted by likely voters. So many of the candidates should either get banished to the Kiddies Table or quit the race.






Those who belong in the Main Even based on average of polls and having won at least 10%:

Donald Trump 35
Ted Cruz 19
Marco "Heels" Rubio 11.3

Those who belong at the Kiddies Table based on average of polls and having won less than 10%:

Ben Carson 8
Jeb Bush 4.7
Chris Christie 3
John "In Ohio" Kasich 3
Rand Paul 3
Carly Fiorina 2.7
Mike Huckabee 2
Rick Santorum 0

For all of the continual bashing of Americans by news media intelligentsia and foreigners, Americans have good common sense. Their common sense tells them none of these candidates would make for good presidents or even have a shot at beating Hillary Clinton should she win the Dems nomination. For why none of these under 10% candidates could beat Hillary, check out NO ORDINARY WHITE GUY COULD EVER HOPE TO WIN THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IN 2016 AND MAYBE NEVER AGAIN. THE GOP WILL BE OVER SOON ENOUGH.

Americans know when products are shoddy. Americans know when music sounds flat. Instinctively, Americans know when others lack verve, strength and cunning intellect to be leaders.

Here are the latest nationwide polls used to calculate the averages.

1/12 CBS/NY Times —
Trump 36, Cruz 19, Rubio 12
Carson 6, Bush 6, Christie 3, Fiorina 3, Huckabee 4, Kasich 2, Paul 1, Santorum 0

1/11 IBD/TIPP
Trump 34, Cruz 18,
Rubio 9, Carson 8, Bush 4, Christie 4, Fiorina 2, Huckabee 1, Kasich 2, Paul 3, Santorum 0

1/8 FOX News —
Trump 35, Cruz 20, Rubio 13, Carson 10,
Bush 4, Christie 2, Fiorina 3, Huckabee 1, Kasich 2, Paul 2, Santorum 0
Read more ...