From: NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: Trump Sues Newspaper Over Election Interference
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 07:26:19 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/19/2024 4:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/18/2024 4:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/17/2024 10:48 AM, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
>>>>>> far behind to win.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
>>>>
>>>> Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
>>>> that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
>>>> actual results?
>>>
>>> It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
>>> time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
>>> called herding.
>>>
>>> https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
>>
>> So the answer is "no".
>
>She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
>
>The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
>percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
>adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
>she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
>Iowa polls.
>
There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided. That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?
>There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
>side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
>weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
>agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
>lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
>by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).
Which says nothing to the point.
>
>(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
>pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
>Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
>though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
>the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.
>
And yet she failed big time here and didn't find the "problem" until
now?
>In the end, it was a bad decision, but a perfectly honest and reasonable
>one.
Laughter.