So are pollster not allowed to be wrong anymore? There will be no poll in sight for the next election. Polls are money losers. They are a part of marketing budget.

Anonymous wrote:Studies show that progressive women specifically, far more than any other group, love to share their political opinions especially if a real live human is listening. They find it to be self-actualizing. This means pretty much all polls are tilted leftward.
Studies also show that women in basically all cultures are more conformist than men and want very much to be accepted by other women. (See: DCUM and all the fretting about mom cliques.) They will do anything to avoid being booted from their peer group. If women hear that all their friends are doing something they are far more likely to do it too.
One or both of these are why this poll was so wrong and why it was released.

Can you please link to said studies?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Now tell us about the funny business in the remaining battleground states.

Anonymous wrote:Studies show that progressive women specifically, far more than any other group, love to share their political opinions especially if a real live human is listening. They find it to be self-actualizing. This means pretty much all polls are tilted leftward.
Studies also show that women in basically all cultures are more conformist than men and want very much to be accepted by other women. (See: DCUM and all the fretting about mom cliques.) They will do anything to avoid being booted from their peer group. If women hear that all their friends are doing something they are far more likely to do it too.
One or both of these are why this poll was so wrong and why it was released.

This explains SO MUCH. DCUM is a microcosm of this phenomenon. Not only the *constant* braying of their opinions, but the insistence that they will ask others how they're voting, and then proceed to "have a conversation" with them (lecture) if the other person dares to say they're voting Republican or are undecided. As if being patronized like a small child is in any way going to bring someone over to your "side." It's really clueless behavior and I see it happening over and over. On a larger scale, we have things like the Women's March - or any protest, for that matter. "Look at us!!"

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

There was funny business. Kamala Harris was appointed as Vice President and then announced as a presidential candidate. And we are still laughing at her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Studies show that progressive women specifically, far more than any other group, love to share their political opinions especially if a real live human is listening. They find it to be self-actualizing. This means pretty much all polls are tilted leftward.
Studies also show that women in basically all cultures are more conformist than men and want very much to be accepted by other women. (See: DCUM and all the fretting about mom cliques.) They will do anything to avoid being booted from their peer group. If women hear that all their friends are doing something they are far more likely to do it too.
One or both of these are why this poll was so wrong and why it was released.

Wow. You make those leftist women sound like cultists.

They are cultists and projecting ones at that.

Anonymous wrote:Studies show that progressive women specifically, far more than any other group, love to share their political opinions especially if a real live human is listening. They find it to be self-actualizing. This means pretty much all polls are tilted leftward.
Studies also show that women in basically all cultures are more conformist than men and want very much to be accepted by other women. (See: DCUM and all the fretting about mom cliques.) They will do anything to avoid being booted from their peer group. If women hear that all their friends are doing something they are far more likely to do it too.
One or both of these are why this poll was so wrong and why it was released.

Wow. You make those leftist women sound like cultists.

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I mentioned earlier that I was suspicious of this outlier poll *because* of her upcoming retirement. Her partisan comments after the fact have solidified my views.

I'm struggling to understand why a pollster would tank her reputation so Democrats could feel good for 3 days.

More likely her methods have stopped working in this day and age where most people don't pick up the phone if an unknown number calls.

If this was a purposeful act, because she thought she could create momentum for Harris, and didn’t think Trump would win by as much as he did even if he did win. (Most people thought this was a 50-50 race.)

Trump certainly won decisively. However, the results seem pretty consistent with the projected 50 50 race. Trump won by 1-2 points in each of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It was decisive, but it wasn't even close to being a landslide. It's certainly notable that Harris did pretty poorly compared with Biden in many blue states, but that's irrelevant to the Electoral College.

This is all well and good at the national level, but it was an Iowa poll not a national poll and that poll was so badly wrong that the person who conducted it should be professionally humiliated and it leaves many asking how it could happen. Was she that one bad poll was the last of her career? The consensus is that she put her thumb on the scale to help Harris. I genuinely believe that she fell victim to this “flood the zone” nonsense going around and probably thought that her poll was somehow correcting an injustice and leveling the playing field. In the end, all those Republican pollsters accused by Democrats of being corrupt were the most accurate. And to this day I have yet to read a mea culpa from anyone who promoted this conspiracy theory.

Studies show that progressive women specifically, far more than any other group, love to share their political opinions especially if a real live human is listening. They find it to be self-actualizing. This means pretty much all polls are tilted leftward.
Studies also show that women in basically all cultures are more conformist than men and want very much to be accepted by other women. (See: DCUM and all the fretting about mom cliques.) They will do anything to avoid being booted from their peer group. If women hear that all their friends are doing something they are far more likely to do it too.
One or both of these are why this poll was so wrong and why it was released.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I mentioned earlier that I was suspicious of this outlier poll *because* of her upcoming retirement. Her partisan comments after the fact have solidified my views.

I'm struggling to understand why a pollster would tank her reputation so Democrats could feel good for 3 days.

More likely her methods have stopped working in this day and age where most people don't pick up the phone if an unknown number calls.

If this was a purposeful act, because she thought she could create momentum for Harris, and didn’t think Trump would win by as much as he did even if he did win. (Most people thought this was a 50-50 race.)

Trump certainly won decisively. However, the results seem pretty consistent with the projected 50 50 race. Trump won by 1-2 points in each of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It was decisive, but it wasn't even close to being a landslide. It's certainly notable that Harris did pretty poorly compared with Biden in many blue states, but that's irrelevant to the Electoral College.

Many people predicted that bogus, astroturfed Iowa poll was a retirement parachute. Just another apparatus grifter at the end of the day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I mentioned earlier that I was suspicious of this outlier poll *because* of her upcoming retirement. Her partisan comments after the fact have solidified my views.

I'm struggling to understand why a pollster would tank her reputation so Democrats could feel good for 3 days.

More likely her methods have stopped working in this day and age where most people don't pick up the phone if an unknown number calls.

If this was a purposeful act, because she thought she could create momentum for Harris, and didn’t think Trump would win by as much as he did even if he did win. (Most people thought this was a 50-50 race.)

DP. I’m in this camp.

Would also agree with this

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I mentioned earlier that I was suspicious of this outlier poll *because* of her upcoming retirement. Her partisan comments after the fact have solidified my views.

I'm struggling to understand why a pollster would tank her reputation so Democrats could feel good for 3 days.

More likely her methods have stopped working in this day and age where most people don't pick up the phone if an unknown number calls.

Exactly. But what's the fun in that.

It certainly doesn't make sense for her to tank her reputation so that "Democrats could feel good for 3 days". I agree with that.

However, nothing changed in the past 4 years in terms of "people not answering their phones".

Or maybe it has

Or maybe the people who pick up their phones are not the low propensity voters who broke for Trump

Or maybe Selzer brought unintentional bias which influenced her findings

Or a million other things - which is why she herself is saying that her model doesn't work for these times, and that's why she's stepping back

She had the integrity to publish a super outlier poll. And yes it did make Dems gleeful - but I don't think anyone believed Harris was actually winning Iowa. Those of us who thought Harris was winning did think it fell into the "wow women are really fired up" line of thought - and they were, but not for Harris

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I mentioned earlier that I was suspicious of this outlier poll *because* of her upcoming retirement. Her partisan comments after the fact have solidified my views.

I'm struggling to understand why a pollster would tank her reputation so Democrats could feel good for 3 days.

More likely her methods have stopped working in this day and age where most people don't pick up the phone if an unknown number calls.

If this was a purposeful act, because she thought she could create momentum for Harris, and didn’t think Trump would win by as much as he did even if he did win. (Most people thought this was a 50-50 race.)

DP. I’m in this camp.