Trump wants Ann Selzer punished for her Iowa poll Predicition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s clearly nothing wrong with a poll shifting 7 points two days before the election and then being 16 points off.

Move along folks. There’s nothing to see here.

She was certainly lying for political gain. While campaign finance laws are wholly unconstitutional, they've been upheld. Her acts should be treated as an undisclosed political contribution and punished accordingly.

Any Dem who disagrees better be on the record saying Mackey should not have gone to jail for publishing a meme. Otherwise, your views are based on your politics and not the law. As such, they're not rational.

You're insane.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election

[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.

Right. Historically, she tracked voters, not cult followers. So, these methods no longer work. Who's the guy with his points, who also got it wrong. He needs to add "propoganda" and "Russia's finger" to his.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s clearly nothing wrong with a poll shifting 7 points two days before the election and then being 16 points off.

Move along folks. There’s nothing to see here.

She was certainly lying for political gain. While campaign finance laws are wholly unconstitutional, they've been upheld. Her acts should be treated as an undisclosed political contribution and punished accordingly.

Any Dem who disagrees better be on the record saying Mackey should not have gone to jail for publishing a meme. Otherwise, your views are based on your politics and not the law. As such, they're not rational.

Sincere question for the group:
Did this board get infiltrated with idiots ( like the above poster) or has the entire country gotten really dumb?
This forum used to be filled with insight and now you have to wade through crap ( see post above) to get to anything meaningful.

[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

It's not constitutional.

Trump is declaring a national emergency and using the military in mass deportation. This is pretty damn close to martial law,! Thousands are going to be murdered.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-national-emergency-military-deportations-1235169953/

Are any GOP or the military going to stop him? We'll know very quickly how things are going to turn out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s clearly nothing wrong with a poll shifting 7 points two days before the election and then being 16 points off.

Move along folks. There’s nothing to see here.

She was certainly lying for political gain. While campaign finance laws are wholly unconstitutional, they've been upheld. Her acts should be treated as an undisclosed political contribution and punished accordingly.

Any Dem who disagrees better be on the record saying Mackey should not have gone to jail for publishing a meme. Otherwise, your views are based on your politics and not the law. As such, they're not rational.

You're insane.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election

Lots of Dems have published worse than Mackey and not been indicted, let alone prosecuted. Once again, Dems weaponized DOJ and you don't care because you're a partisan. As I said, your views are based on politics and neither the law nor principle.

[Anonymous]

She hasn’t done anything wrong, other than get it wrong. She’s allowed to get it wrong.
But that won’t stop Trump from siccing the feds on her. He can ruin anyone’s life just by starting an investigation. He can destroy her financially. He can make sure she gets a horrible audit ( he did that to numerous federal employees last time)
She went out on a limb and published her results. It was brave.
But I’ve learned that the brave get punished in this timeline.

[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.

absolutely agree, all political polls should have close scrutiny as they can cause election interference, scrutiny of the funding and if they are bias

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s clearly nothing wrong with a poll shifting 7 points two days before the election and then being 16 points off.

Move along folks. There’s nothing to see here.

She was certainly lying for political gain. While campaign finance laws are wholly unconstitutional, they've been upheld. Her acts should be treated as an undisclosed political contribution and punished accordingly.

Any Dem who disagrees better be on the record saying Mackey should not have gone to jail for publishing a meme. Otherwise, your views are based on your politics and not the law. As such, they're not rational.

Sincere question for the group:
Did this board get infiltrated with idiots ( like the above poster) or has the entire country gotten really dumb?
This forum used to be filled with insight and now you have to wade through crap ( see post above) to get to anything meaningful.

Your post would be better received if you posted a substantive criticism instead of appealing to some illusory group consensus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s clearly nothing wrong with a poll shifting 7 points two days before the election and then being 16 points off.

Move along folks. There’s nothing to see here.

She was certainly lying for political gain. While campaign finance laws are wholly unconstitutional, they've been upheld. Her acts should be treated as an undisclosed political contribution and punished accordingly.

Any Dem who disagrees better be on the record saying Mackey should not have gone to jail for publishing a meme. Otherwise, your views are based on your politics and not the law. As such, they're not rational.

You're insane.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election

Lots of Dems have published worse than Mackey and not been indicted, let alone prosecuted. Once again, Dems weaponized DOJ and you don't care because you're a partisan. As I said, your views are based on politics and neither the law nor principle.

13:24 nailed it. Bored, ignorant troll moms who love Kool-aid and felons have arrived and they're not leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s clearly nothing wrong with a poll shifting 7 points two days before the election and then being 16 points off.

Move along folks. There’s nothing to see here.

She was certainly lying for political gain. While campaign finance laws are wholly unconstitutional, they've been upheld. Her acts should be treated as an undisclosed political contribution and punished accordingly.

Any Dem who disagrees better be on the record saying Mackey should not have gone to jail for publishing a meme. Otherwise, your views are based on your politics and not the law. As such, they're not rational.

You're insane.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer-douglass-mackey-sentenced-after-conviction-election

Lots of Dems have published worse than Mackey and not been indicted, let alone prosecuted. Once again, Dems weaponized DOJ and you don't care because you're a partisan. As I said, your views are based on politics and neither the law nor principle.

Dp- hey babe. “Lots of dems” doesn’t hold up in court.

[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

She doesn’t weight her polls. Her methods aren’t a secret.

She refused to release her cross tabs.

[Anonymous]

I think Selzer allowed her political bias to affect the results of her poll. There is no way an unbiased political observer would think Harris was beating Trump in Iowa. There was nothing that indicated that a state that voted for Trump by 8 points in 2020 and has only become more Republican by registration since would vote for a Democrat candidate. Indeed, the state shifted further red, voting for Trump by 13 points in the election. Another sign that the poll was wildly off is that neither campaign spent time or money campaigning in the state. Neither candidate thought the state was competitive.

Jon Ralston was another one who allowed his political bias to infect his prediction that Harris would beat Trump in Nevada by something like 0.2%. He had commented for weeks that Republican turnout in early voting would likely be too much for Harris to overcome. Yet, he predicted, based on no evidence, that independent voters would break wildly in favor of Harris.

[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.

absolutely agree, all political polls should have close scrutiny as they can cause election interference, scrutiny of the funding and if they are bias

evidence of such?

[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.

Those to all those who voted for this malignant narcissist.

[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.

absolutely agree, all political polls should have close scrutiny as they can cause election interference, scrutiny of the funding and if they are bias

Please. Now let's do Elon.