"Well, what's wrong with slavery?"

[was]

You've made various claims, like Trump bringing out the conservative radicals not representative of the Republican party as a whole. I don't see why anyone should give those claims the least bit of thought if you deny any source of information with any sort of reliability that could back up those claims. Without polls, you're pulling those claims out of gut feelings and thin air.

...Sigh, once again I am forced to defend a party I don't particularly care for.

...That Trump brings out the conservative vote is a fairly conclusive observation. As is the fact that he does not represent the whole party. When you actually turn the channel away from Trump, you hear Republicans screaming over and over again that he doesn't represent the party. Using Trump to demonize the whole party has simply become an easy tool for liberals to attack their foes. By using it they don't really have to do much work focusing on the platforms of individual candidates.

... I also know many Republicans living in various parts of the country. We talk politics regularly and they have made me well aware that Trump does not represent the party

...I am well-versed on the construction of polls and surveys. Not only have I studied them at the college level, I have constructed them and been employed as a survey/poll taker. Polls and surveys are easily manipulated depending on what questions are asked and who you survey. You should never take any poll as factual until you have the opportunity to examine its construction and how it was conducted.

...Finally, I don't expect anybody to take my word as the ultimate authority on any issue. I hope that people are motivated enough to research issues on their own. Research that does not rely upon biased interpretations made by politically-motivated sources.

 

[prosfilaes]

...Sigh, once again I am forced to defend a party I don't particularly care for.

You're not being asked to defend a party; you're being asked to defend throwing out the evidence and then making evidential claims.

... I also know many Republicans living in various parts of the country. We talk politics regularly and they have made me well aware that Trump does not represent the party

The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data.

...I am well-versed on the construction of polls and surveys. Not only have I studied them at the college level, I have constructed them and been employed as a survey/poll taker. Polls and surveys are easily manipulated depending on what questions are asked and who you survey. You should never take any poll as factual until you have the opportunity to examine its construction and how it was conducted.

I'm not saying we shouldn't question our sources of data. I'm saying that without polls, you don't know anything. If 67% of Republicans are ready to make Trump their president, it doesn't matter what other people are saying. And the only way the rest of us know that 67% of Republicans aren't ready to make Trump their president is polls.

Not liking the evidence before you is not a justification for spinning anecdote and personal impressions of press coverage into actual fact. There's always an epistemological argument for saying we don't know anything, and that's the only philosophically acceptable answer once you've declare the most reliable sources of data unreliable.

 

[MechaPilot]

...Don't trust any poll. Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.

Some polls are biased therefore all polls are worthless?

Sounds like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That Trump brings out the conservative vote is a fairly conclusive observation. As is the fact that he does not represent the whole party.

True. At current poling, @70%+ of Republicans prefer other candidates. However, when you look at how the other non- establishment, iconoclastic GOP candidates are polling- Carson, Cruz, Walker & Huckabee- they account for more than 50% of prospective republican voters.

Put differently, supposedly mainstream GOP candidates are losing the race to their more controversial competition.

 

[was]

You're not being asked to defend a party; you're being asked to defend throwing out the evidence and then making evidential claims.

The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data. The plural of anecdote is not data.

I'm not saying we shouldn't question our sources of data. I'm saying that without polls, you don't know anything. If 67% of Republicans are ready to make Trump their president, it doesn't matter what other people are saying. And the only way the rest of us know that 67% of Republicans aren't ready to make Trump their president is polls.

Not liking the evidence before you is not a justification for spinning anecdote and personal impressions of press coverage into actual fact. There's always an epistemological argument for saying we don't know anything, and that's the only philosophically acceptable answer once you've declare the most reliable sources of data unreliable.

...Your posts indicate a dismissive nature/combative attitude towards any data/evidence/facts that conflict with your own views. In that case, there is simply nothing to be gained in my attempting to continue this discussion. Please have a nice evening.

 

[Umbran]

...Don't trust any poll. Any poll can be easily manipulated using statistical data and group membership info.

You do realize, you've just made this a religious argument?

By flatly rejecting scientific evidence without so much as considering the validity of that evidence, you render any and all claims you make non-falsifiable. This leaves the discussion only at the level of belief, with nothing that could bring you to reconsider your position critically. While that may be very comfortable for you, since it makes your position tidily unassailable, that is not reasonable. Unreasonable, in the fairly literal sense of reason no longer being applicable.

While this makes your position and approach clear, for which I do thank you, it also likely leaves you without a route to meaningful input in the rest of the discussion, as we now know that your position is not open to debate. You've just rendered yourself into a dogmatist, and who wants to beat a head against that?

 

[Umbran]

...Your posts indicate a dismissive nature/combative attitude towards any data/evidence/facts that conflict with your own views.

And yours doesn't?

Heck, what *evidence* have you submitted? "Plausible narrative" is not evidence.

 

[prosfilaes]

...Your posts indicate a dismissive nature/combative attitude towards any data/evidence/facts that conflict with your own views.

That's nonsense. The question was, how can you know how much support Trump has and how much he represents the Republican Party if you ignore polls? I'm not even really discussing Trump; the question is about how we understand the field under discussion. No, asking a couple of your friends is not a substitute for polling 50,000 randomly sampled people.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

...Just because a lot of people have been checking him out, doesn't mean that they will vote for him.

These are people that are checking him out. They are people that are supporting him.

Given the current media attention, I would attend one of his rallies simply to see if the circus lived up to the hype. Doesn't mean that I would ever vote for him. It's like going to see a car race in the hopes of seeing a crash. People are attracted to the spectacle.

More than likely, you would be an outlier¹ at one of his rallies.

[sblock=1]Not counting reporters and other media personnel there to cover the rally or workers at the place the rally takes place.[/sblock]

 

[nightwind1]

...First off, let me qualify my post by stating that I am certainly not a conservative on social issues. That being said, it has always amazed me how partisan publications, from both parties, are able to dig up such totally obscure sources and paint them as being the typical attitude, or belief, for the opposing party or region. I find it absolutely appalling for any 'news' publication to willingly sow such ignorance.

...While I have traveled throughout the U.S. and overseas, I have lived in Iowa for much of my life. I currently live Des Moines, an area which also tends to vote liberal, where apparently this show originates. I had never heard of this Jan Mickelson person until the Huffington Post article with his comments was posted here. He certainly is not much of a controversial, or popular figure, in this area. His shows does not even appear to be advertised on local billboards or television. What the Post has really done, in their pointed article, is to draw potential supporters to an unknown broadcaster.

...Finally, not many people around here bother to turn on AM radio unless the tornado sirens are sounding.

It's not an "obscure" source. He's been on the air on WHO, a 50,000 watt station, for more than 20 years.

Of course, WHO also plays Limpballs, and another local reich-winger, Simon Conway.