Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition.

[Anonymous]

She likely messed up but how in the world does this escalate to an investigation called by the President-elect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's not forget that Selzer planned to look at the data when her fraud was first discovered.

She retired rather than face scrutiny. That's something a guilty person would do.

So, like not returning classified documents? And getting a judge you appointed to slow roll your case?

[Anonymous]

Trump bullying at its finest, against a woman no less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Selzer made a last-resort decision to publish this bad data to influence the election outcome. If it had worked, Harris would have won and Selzer could continue being a pollster. It did not work, and now she is done. But she gave it a shot.

how would this influence the outcome? it was one poll for iowa

how exactly do you think polling works?!

Douglas Mackey got prosecuted for publishing one meme. Mackey had a much smaller audience than Selzer. In any case, the law doesn't hinge on the number of people who see it.

i think you might not be a lawyer?

Again with the personal attack due to an inability to present facts and evidence to the contrary. The US Code at issue here has been warped to be applicable to Selzer.

Np- by you. Not by the DOJ. The things are are comparing aren’t comparable.

What's the difference between Mackey and Selzer's behavior then with regard to 18 USC 241?

Did ann tell people to vote using an app on their phone when she polled them?
Did she tell them that the election was Thursday November 7 when she polled them?
Did ann tell them their polling places had moved when she polled them?
No?
Ok. Please stop you are embarrassing yourself.

No, she told them their vote wasn't going to matter because Harris had a big lead. That's a matter of evidence and intent that should be determined at trial.

Now, let's say Selzer isn't guilty. The problem is the DOJ ignored misconduct much closer to Mackey's. Specifically, Kristina Wong told "Trump Supporters" to vote by phone on "Super Wednesday." Of course, the corrupt DOJ didn't prosecute her because justice doesn't apply to Dems under Garland.

[Anonymous]

So now we see that Trump is far more interested in being stupid, hyperpartisan, petty and vengeful rather than actually solving the kitchen-table issues that Americans elected him to tackle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Selzer made a last-resort decision to publish this bad data to influence the election outcome. If it had worked, Harris would have won and Selzer could continue being a pollster. It did not work, and now she is done. But she gave it a shot.

how would this influence the outcome? it was one poll for iowa

how exactly do you think polling works?!

Douglas Mackey got prosecuted for publishing one meme. Mackey had a much smaller audience than Selzer. In any case, the law doesn't hinge on the number of people who see it.

i think you might not be a lawyer?

Again with the personal attack due to an inability to present facts and evidence to the contrary. The US Code at issue here has been warped to be applicable to Selzer.

Np- by you. Not by the DOJ. The things are are comparing aren’t comparable.

What's the difference between Mackey and Selzer's behavior then with regard to 18 USC 241?

Did ann tell people to vote using an app on their phone when she polled them?
Did she tell them that the election was Thursday November 7 when she polled them?
Did ann tell them their polling places had moved when she polled them?
No?
Ok. Please stop you are embarrassing yourself.

No, she told them their vote wasn't going to matter because Harris had a big lead. That's a matter of evidence and intent that should be determined at trial.

Now, let's say Selzer isn't guilty. The problem is the DOJ ignored misconduct much closer to Mackey's. Specifically, Kristina Wong told "Trump Supporters" to vote by phone on "Super Wednesday." Of course, the corrupt DOJ didn't prosecute her because justice doesn't apply to Dems under Garland.

Honey. She cold called like 800 Iowans, asked them questions, and reported the results.
Stay mad I guess, but she literally didn’t tell them anything. THEY TOLD HER. That’s how polling works.

[Anonymous]

Shame

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate case for election interference.

So is every single other poll, then.

Maybe or
maybe not,, depending on how they did it.

Oh, of course. Double standards rule the day in MAGA world.

If that's how you view things, sure please go ahead. But you can't stop others from doing things the right way, which is to investigate and (potentially) prosecute in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate case for election interference.

So is every single other poll, then.

Maybe or
maybe not,, depending on how they did it.

Oh, of course. Double standards rule the day in MAGA world.

If that's how you view things, sure please go ahead. But you can't stop others from doing things the right way, which is to investigate and (potentially) prosecute in this case.

She cold called 800 Iowans and reported her results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate case for election interference.

So is every single other poll, then.

Maybe or
maybe not,, depending on how they did it.

Oh, of course. Double standards rule the day in MAGA world.

If that's how you view things, sure please go ahead. But you can't stop others from doing things the right way, which is to investigate and (potentially) prosecute in this case.

She cold called 800 Iowans and reported her results.

so that alone made it okay? what an idiot, lol!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate case for election interference.

So is every single other poll, then.

Maybe or
maybe not,, depending on how they did it.

Oh, of course. Double standards rule the day in MAGA world.

If that's how you view things, sure please go ahead. But you can't stop others from doing things the right way, which is to investigate and (potentially) prosecute in this case.

That's not just my view, that's just how it is. Starting with Trump himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a legitimate case for election interference.

So is every single other poll, then.

Maybe or
maybe not,, depending on how they did it.

Oh, of course. Double standards rule the day in MAGA world.

If that's how you view things, sure please go ahead. But you can't stop others from doing things the right way, which is to investigate and (potentially) prosecute in this case.

She cold called 800 Iowans and reported her results.

so that alone made it okay? what an idiot, lol!

Please explain for the group how that would “not be ok”
Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he is right.

Pollsters should do their best to be non biased. It definitely look like she released intentionally skewed results into order to bolster Harris’s momentum and change the media narrative for democrats to positive

It's possible it was intentional. I don't know how you would prove that.

It's also possible it was an outlier.

Polls are not all supposed to be correct. If they are, they are herding (manipulating their results).

Punishing a pollster like this will only lead to more herding.

This.

[Anonymous]

Seltzer (or another insider) allegedly released the poll info early to the KH campaign. This is highly atypical for non campaign polls. Indeed, the Des Moines Register holds itself out as a non partisan actor. So there is probably some fraudulent business records case to be made here, too.

Throw in election interference, fake news, misinformation, release of business secrets, voter suppression through the “shock poll” and, yeah, she should be investigated and she should probably just go ahead and plead guilty. And that’s before the fraud on prediction markets.

Protecting our democracy is the most important thing. We can never forget Nov 2 and how she clearly harmed our democracy. Has anybody checked her for ties to Russia yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seltzer (or another insider) allegedly released the poll info early to the KH campaign. This is highly atypical for non campaign polls. Indeed, the Des Moines Register holds itself out as a non partisan actor. So there is probably some fraudulent business records case to be made here, too.

Throw in election interference, fake news, misinformation, release of business secrets, voter suppression through the “shock poll” and, yeah, she should be investigated and she should probably just go ahead and plead guilty. And that’s before the fraud on prediction markets.

Protecting our democracy is the most important thing. We can never forget Nov 2 and how she clearly harmed our democracy. Has anybody checked her for ties to Russia yet?

"Show me the Democrat and I'll find you the crime."