On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 13:25:34 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 11:24:25 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


The CCW holder
knows they are already in the police file of actual or potential gun
owners.

A "police file"? We're talking here about private, independent
pollsters, who were running a multi-question social-issues poll.


The laptop in the cruiser brings up CCW information when you type in
an address, that "police file".

But what does that have to do with an independent social-issues poll?
The records are private in most states:

http://www.concealedcarryfans.com/co...public-record/


You keep pretending that what the pollster knows or doesn't affects
what sensitive personal information a security-conscious individual is
willing to risk sharing with a stranger.

I'm not pretending anything. I reported the data from the Zogby poll.
Did you look at it? I even provided a link.


Don't forget that expert professional surveys gave Hillary the
election.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...htmlstory.html
"Overall, SurveyMonkey estimates Clinton's chances of winning at 96%."
We know the election was fair because the Dems assured us there was no
voter fraud.
-jsw


You sould read better sources. Clinton finished, the day before the
election, with a 3.2% popular-vote poll advantage:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nson-5949.html

She won the popular vote by 2.1%.

Getting it right to 1.1%, nationwide, with results close to 50%, is
spectacularly good poll accuracy.

Once the numbnuts got ahold of it, though, they totally screwed up the
reporting on poll accuracy.

--
Ed Huntress