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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?