Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That is exactly what she did, and she got caught. That's why she is retiring. Trump isn't going to do anything, and all of the whiners keep taking the bait, must be miserable.

“Over a year ago I advised the Register I would not renew when my 2024 contract expired with the latest election poll as I transition to other ventures and opportunities,” Selzer wrote in an op-ed for the newspaper.

The final Des Moines Register poll, released the Saturday before the election, found Harris (47 percent) and Donald Trump (44 percent) neck and neck, a shocking result in a state not considered competitive. According to unofficial results, Trump won Iowa by 13 points, 56 percent to 43 percent.

“Would I have liked to make this announcement after a final poll aligned with Election Day results? Of course,” Selzer wrote. “It’s ironic that it’s just the opposite. I am proud of the work I’ve done for the Register, for the Detroit Free Press, for the Indianapolis Star, for Bloomberg News and for other public and private organizations interested in elections. They were great clients and were happy with my work.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ann-selzer-leaving-election-polling-after-iowa-whiff/ar-AA1ueOFS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

got caught *what*? in your mind, what gain is made by publishing a poll she knows is wrong?

did harris win iowa? did she win the election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He wants her investigated for fraud.

What are we doing here?
It; 's not enough for him to win.
He needs to have question support.
He's also sicing his supporters on her.


https://nypost.com/2024/11/18/us-news/trump-slams-pollster-j-ann-selzer-whose-totally-fake-poll-showed-harris-winning-iowa-calls-for-probe/


President-elect Donald Trump slammed retiring election pollster J. Ann Selzer and called for an investigation after her last pre-Election Day survey showed Vice President Kamala Harris topping the Republican in Iowa — a state he ultimately won.

Trump slammed Selzer and the now-ridiculed Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll hours after she announced she was calling it quits from election polling.

Her last poll indicated Trump would lose to Harris by as much as three points in Iowa, but the future 47th president ended up winning the red state by a whopping 13 points on the way to recapturing the presidency.

Do you think you can just consolidate this trial with the other show trials in the military?

[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

That is exactly what she did, and she got caught. That's why she is retiring. Trump isn't going to do anything, and all of the whiners keep taking the bait, must be miserable.

The only one who is whining is Trump. If he isn't going to do anything maybe he should shut up.

[Anonymous]

So we're just going to do away with the first amendment now and only print things he likes, right?.

Ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He wants her investigated for fraud.

What are we doing here?
It; 's not enough for him to win.
He needs to have question support.
He's also sicing his supporters on her.


https://nypost.com/2024/11/18/us-news/trump-slams-pollster-j-ann-selzer-whose-totally-fake-poll-showed-harris-winning-iowa-calls-for-probe/


President-elect Donald Trump slammed retiring election pollster J. Ann Selzer and called for an investigation after her last pre-Election Day survey showed Vice President Kamala Harris topping the Republican in Iowa — a state he ultimately won.

Trump slammed Selzer and the now-ridiculed Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll hours after she announced she was calling it quits from election polling.

Her last poll indicated Trump would lose to Harris by as much as three points in Iowa, but the future 47th president ended up winning the red state by a whopping 13 points on the way to recapturing the presidency.

Sounds like Trump cheated and should be investigated for fraud!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That is exactly what she did, and she got caught. That's why she is retiring. Trump isn't going to do anything, and all of the whiners keep taking the bait, must be miserable.

“Over a year ago I advised the Register I would not renew when my 2024 contract expired with the latest election poll as I transition to other ventures and opportunities,” Selzer wrote in an op-ed for the newspaper.

The final Des Moines Register poll, released the Saturday before the election, found Harris (47 percent) and Donald Trump (44 percent) neck and neck, a shocking result in a state not considered competitive. According to unofficial results, Trump won Iowa by 13 points, 56 percent to 43 percent.

“Would I have liked to make this announcement after a final poll aligned with Election Day results? Of course,” Selzer wrote. “It’s ironic that it’s just the opposite. I am proud of the work I’ve done for the Register, for the Detroit Free Press, for the Indianapolis Star, for Bloomberg News and for other public and private organizations interested in elections. They were great clients and were happy with my work.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ann-selzer-leaving-election-polling-after-iowa-whiff/ar-AA1ueOFS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

got caught *what*? in your mind, what gain is made by publishing a poll she knows is wrong?

did harris win iowa? did she win the election?

The person you're responding to doesn't have their own thoughts; they only think what Trump tells them to. Trump knew exactly what he was doing with his talk of investigation and fraud. He and his plans were coming under too much scrutiny some in his base were starting to question him, so back to a tried and true technique sic them on an enemy.

Obama, Hilary, Hunter Biden, now Selzer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He wants her investigated for fraud.

What are we doing here?
It; 's not enough for him to win.
He needs to have question support.
He's also sicing his supporters on her.


https://nypost.com/2024/11/18/us-news/trump-slams-pollster-j-ann-selzer-whose-totally-fake-poll-showed-harris-winning-iowa-calls-for-probe/


President-elect Donald Trump slammed retiring election pollster J. Ann Selzer and called for an investigation after her last pre-Election Day survey showed Vice President Kamala Harris topping the Republican in Iowa — a state he ultimately won.

Trump slammed Selzer and the now-ridiculed Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll hours after she announced she was calling it quits from election polling.

Her last poll indicated Trump would lose to Harris by as much as three points in Iowa, but the future 47th president ended up winning the red state by a whopping 13 points on the way to recapturing the presidency.

Sounds like Trump cheated and should be investigated for fraud!

Well we know He likes to accuse others of the things he's guilty of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That is exactly what she did, and she got caught. That's why she is retiring. Trump isn't going to do anything, and all of the whiners keep taking the bait, must be miserable.

The only one who is whining is Trump. If he isn't going to do anything maybe he should shut up.

He's far and away the biggest snowflake to ever be elected President. Hopefully no future President is so thin-skinned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we're just going to do away with the first amendment now and only print things he likes, right?.

Ok

Exactly what he wants.

[Anonymous]

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

Agree. I was second guessing everything when I heard about Selzer's poll. This is the reason election results are not published until all polls are closed. As it is people could have decided not to vote or vote for Harris because it looked the poll was signaling a come from behind for her.

If the Dems have been yammering about election integrity, they should look into it. Maybe Selzer can join Harris on history's dumbassery island.

[Anonymous]

He should definitely spend his entire time as President attacking windmills.

[Anonymous]

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

So what damages is he entitled to? What law was broken? Was anyone libeled?

[Anonymous]

I am a Harris-supporting Dem and I do think Selzer might have put a finger on the scales in that poll, in retrospect. Though not in the way people are alleging. I think it has to do with how she identifies voters as "likely" and that her method discounts Trump voters who may respond to interviewers questions about whether or not they will vote with sarcasm or caustic negativity. Unlike other pollster's, Selzer doesn't weight her likely voter sampling by looking at things like past voting history. She takes them at their word -- if a voter says they are going to vote, they are a likely voter. If they don't say this or sounds as though they are still not sure if they are going to vote, they are not a likely voter.

This has been an effective way of measuring likely voters in Iowa in the past but Trump voters often have a different posture about voting than supporters of other candidates (of both parties) have had in the past. As a result I think Selzer under-sampled Trump supporters by excluding them on the question of whether or not they were likely to vote, and this resulted in a poll result that greatly overestimated support for Harris in the Iowa electorate.

I also think this sampling error became more pronounced for the poll shortly before the election because Selzer's interviews were likely looking for very strong indications of plans to vote in the week before Election Day, whereas when she polled the state in June and in September (both polls showed Trump well ahead) she likely accepted any indication that they planned to vote (even if lukewarm) as qualifying for them to be included as a likely voter.

Pollsters hate Trump even when they like him because it's very hard to gauge actual support for him because of the nature of his support and his ability to turn out unlikely voters. The polls that "accurately" predicted election results did so by baking in prior experiences with Trump voters in order to weight the polls in his favor. For instance many pollsters have changed how they characterize hang-ups in phone polls -- previously a respondent who said "I'm ******* voting for Trump" and then hung up or terminated a text poll would have been left out of poll results as "nonresponsive." Now most pollsters will list that respondent as voting for Trump even though they technically didn't answer any polling questions and didn't provide answers to questions like how likely they are to vote or how they voted in the last election.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Trump is no longer running, to see if polling firms can regain their footing. I will note here that the polls were very accurate at predicting outcomes of Senate and House races as well as ballot initiatives.

Anyway it is a shame this was Selzer's last poll. She was good at her job but she didn't adjust to the Trump electorate and she paid for that error with this black mark on an otherwise stellar record over nearly 40 years. A shame.

Trump can go suck his thumb in the corner about this one. He will lose this.

[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

So what damages is he entitled to? What law was broken? Was anyone libeled?

We're asking the same question about the New York case. Well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Harris-supporting Dem and I do think Selzer might have put a finger on the scales in that poll, in retrospect. Though not in the way people are alleging. I think it has to do with how she identifies voters as "likely" and that her method discounts Trump voters who may respond to interviewers questions about whether or not they will vote with sarcasm or caustic negativity. Unlike other pollster's, Selzer doesn't weight her likely voter sampling by looking at things like past voting history. She takes them at their word -- if a voter says they are going to vote, they are a likely voter. If they don't say this or sounds as though they are still not sure if they are going to vote, they are not a likely voter.

This has been an effective way of measuring likely voters in Iowa in the past but Trump voters often have a different posture about voting than supporters of other candidates (of both parties) have had in the past. As a result I think Selzer under-sampled Trump supporters by excluding them on the question of whether or not they were likely to vote, and this resulted in a poll result that greatly overestimated support for Harris in the Iowa electorate.

I also think this sampling error became more pronounced for the poll shortly before the election because Selzer's interviews were likely looking for very strong indications of plans to vote in the week before Election Day, whereas when she polled the state in June and in September (both polls showed Trump well ahead) she likely accepted any indication that they planned to vote (even if lukewarm) as qualifying for them to be included as a likely voter.

Pollsters hate Trump even when they like him because it's very hard to gauge actual support for him because of the nature of his support and his ability to turn out unlikely voters. The polls that "accurately" predicted election results did so by baking in prior experiences with Trump voters in order to weight the polls in his favor. For instance many pollsters have changed how they characterize hang-ups in phone polls -- previously a respondent who said "I'm ******* voting for Trump" and then hung up or terminated a text poll would have been left out of poll results as "nonresponsive." Now most pollsters will list that respondent as voting for Trump even though they technically didn't answer any polling questions and didn't provide answers to questions like how likely they are to vote or how they voted in the last election.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Trump is no longer running, to see if polling firms can regain their footing. I will note here that the polls were very accurate at predicting outcomes of Senate and House races as well as ballot initiatives.

Anyway it is a shame this was Selzer's last poll. She was good at her job but she didn't adjust to the Trump electorate and she paid for that error with this black mark on an otherwise stellar record over nearly 40 years. A shame.

Trump can go suck his thumb in the corner about this one. He will lose this.

isn't it amazing what a whiny little b**** he is even after winning an election? i've honestly never met such a whiny little b**** in all my life. amazing anyone thinks he represents masculinity. maybe for an undersocialized four year old.