Harris beating Trump in Iowa

[Anonymous]

She was interviewed on the Bulwark the day before the election, and Tim Miller was trying to pin her down on how she knew if she talked to enough republicans. He was trying to get at the fact that certain people might be more likely to respond to a poll, and those people might be democrats, that her methodology might be self selecting. She never really had an answer for him regarding that. More than that, it was like she couldn’t imagine that it could be a problem.
Which makes sense. Her methods had been really reliable for decades.
Lots of things changed this election cycle. She was hardly the only one to be behind the times.

[Anonymous]

I took her poll very seriously - enough to consider the possibility that Harris will win overwhelmingly. She caught the Trump vote when so many missed it. Also, she specializes in Iowa and seems to take polling seriously and doesn't just throw numbers out there every day.

Yet, she made a colossal error. Really big. And her follow ups are extremely unsatisfactory. She keeps talking about reviewing and going through etc but not a single specific point about what went wrong.

[Anonymous]

Polling is never to believed. Bill Clinton was losing the polls because his base weren’t answering the polls. He tried to tell Hillary and her campaign not to trust polls. Pollsters try their best but it’s not something fool proof and that anyone can just predict. The majority of people have never answered a poll or ever been asked to participate in a poll

[Anonymous]

I'm not convinced she was wrong. I still think there was some funny business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ann Selzer Vows Changes After Iowa Poll Wrong by 16 Points

Pollster Ann Selzer has vowed to review the data after her weekend poll on the presidential race in Iowa turned out to be wrong by 16 points.

Though counting is still ongoing in the state after Tuesday's election, President-elect Donald Trump won the state's 6 Electoral College votes with 55.9 percent of the vote compared to Vice President Kamala Harris's 42.7 percent, per estimates from the Associated Press.

What Was Ann Selzer's Prediction?
The Iowa poll, conducted by Selzer & Company for The Des Moines Register/ Mediacom, found Harris had a three-point lead over Trump in the state, 47 percent to the Republican's 44 percent.

The poll surveyed 808 likely voters in Iowa between October 28 and 31 with its shock result falling within the poll's 3.4 percent margin of error.

Announcing her findings on Saturday, Selzer, previously described as "the best pollster in politics" by aggregator FiveThirtyEight, said Harris had "clearly leaped into a leading position."

However, the Iowa poll turned out to be wrong by 16 points following the results of Tuesday's election. The former president has won Iowa by 55.9 percent to Harris's 42.7 percent, a difference of 13.2 percent so far.

https://www.newsweek.com/ann-selzer-iowa-vows-changes-poll-wrong-1981297

How much of the $billion$ KH raised went in Selzer’s pocketses for this fake @ss poll?

All: There's a benefit to being cynical. You don't get hurt.

Selzer knew this all along. This was push polling, not polling.

I don't care if you run a "thousand simulations". It was not going to happen.

It's time for you guys to see things clearly.

F Hope & Change, Joy, Brat, Forward Together, No Malarkey, I'm with Her, When We Fight We Win, and all the other cute taglines.

What you see now is Selzer trying to save face. But 16 points. NO. It was never going to happen. Stop getting played, rubes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced she was wrong. I still think there was some funny business.

Yes, well, you're weak minded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Polling is never to believed. Bill Clinton was losing the polls because his base weren’t answering the polls. He tried to tell Hillary and her campaign not to trust polls. Pollsters try their best but it’s not something fool proof and that anyone can just predict. The majority of people have never answered a poll or ever been asked to participate in a poll

Lately, pollsters try to change outcomes rather than recording them.

Learn to discern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was interviewed on the Bulwark the day before the election, and Tim Miller was trying to pin her down on how she knew if she talked to enough republicans. He was trying to get at the fact that certain people might be more likely to respond to a poll, and those people might be democrats, that her methodology might be self selecting. She never really had an answer for him regarding that. More than that, it was like she couldn’t imagine that it could be a problem.
Which makes sense. Her methods had been really reliable for decades.
Lots of things changed this election cycle. She was hardly the only one to be behind the times.

You act like this was a mistake. It wasn't. It was a play and you were the mark.

It's ridiculous the lies you'll tell yourself to console your conscience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I took her poll very seriously - enough to consider the possibility that Harris will win overwhelmingly. She caught the Trump vote when so many missed it. Also, she specializes in Iowa and seems to take polling seriously and doesn't just throw numbers out there every day.

Yet, she made a colossal error. Really big. And her follow ups are extremely unsatisfactory. She keeps talking about reviewing and going through etc but not a single specific point about what went wrong.

This was no error.

Stop lying to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was interviewed on the Bulwark the day before the election, and Tim Miller was trying to pin her down on how she knew if she talked to enough republicans. He was trying to get at the fact that certain people might be more likely to respond to a poll, and those people might be democrats, that her methodology might be self selecting. She never really had an answer for him regarding that. More than that, it was like she couldn’t imagine that it could be a problem.
Which makes sense. Her methods had been really reliable for decades.
Lots of things changed this election cycle. She was hardly the only one to be behind the times.

You act like this was a mistake. It wasn't. It was a play and you were the mark.

It's ridiculous the lies you'll tell yourself to console your conscience.

You don’t know what you are talking about, and frankly it’s boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was interviewed on the Bulwark the day before the election, and Tim Miller was trying to pin her down on how she knew if she talked to enough republicans. He was trying to get at the fact that certain people might be more likely to respond to a poll, and those people might be democrats, that her methodology might be self selecting. She never really had an answer for him regarding that. More than that, it was like she couldn’t imagine that it could be a problem.
Which makes sense. Her methods had been really reliable for decades.
Lots of things changed this election cycle. She was hardly the only one to be behind the times.

You act like this was a mistake. It wasn't. It was a play and you were the mark.

It's ridiculous the lies you'll tell yourself to console your conscience.

You don’t know what you are talking about, and frankly it’s boring.

Yes, you're lazy in thought. It figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was interviewed on the Bulwark the day before the election, and Tim Miller was trying to pin her down on how she knew if she talked to enough republicans. He was trying to get at the fact that certain people might be more likely to respond to a poll, and those people might be democrats, that her methodology might be self selecting. She never really had an answer for him regarding that. More than that, it was like she couldn’t imagine that it could be a problem.
Which makes sense. Her methods had been really reliable for decades.
Lots of things changed this election cycle. She was hardly the only one to be behind the times.

You act like this was a mistake. It wasn't. It was a play and you were the mark.

It's ridiculous the lies you'll tell yourself to console your conscience.

You don’t know what you are talking about, and frankly it’s boring.

Yes, you're lazy in thought. It figures.

Yawn dude. You don’t know anything about the poll, that particular pollster, or polling in general… but go off queen. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced she was wrong. I still think there was some funny business.

Yes, well, you're weak minded.

Dp here, but it is certainly not weak minded to think there was some funny business. It is unbelievably obvious. Trump even stood on stage and bragged about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was interviewed on the Bulwark the day before the election, and Tim Miller was trying to pin her down on how she knew if she talked to enough republicans. He was trying to get at the fact that certain people might be more likely to respond to a poll, and those people might be democrats, that her methodology might be self selecting. She never really had an answer for him regarding that. More than that, it was like she couldn’t imagine that it could be a problem.
Which makes sense. Her methods had been really reliable for decades.
Lots of things changed this election cycle. She was hardly the only one to be behind the times.

Her sample indicated the electorate would have more Democrats in Republican +8 state. Her poll never made any sense. She failed to release a poll showing Biden down 18 points to Trump in Iowa, but released her final poll that did not align with reality. The fact that neither campaign spent any time or money in Iowa was proof that it wasn’t a competitive state, let alone a state Harris had a chance to win. Trump cam much closer to winning blue states like Illinois and New Jersey than Harris did to winning Iowa. She did worse than Biden in the state.

[Anonymous]

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2024/11/17/ann-selzer-conducts-iowa-poll-ending-election-polling-moving-to-other-opportunities/76334909007/

She is retiring from polling. Her reputation is destroyed now. I think she released that so-called “poll” because she is a partisan Democrat and wanted to boost Kamala Harris in the election. She must have only talked to voters who share her political view in order to get results that were so tremendously wrong.