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: Sat, 21 Dec 2024 09:56:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:13:11 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/20/2024 4:26 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> 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.
>
>She took a deep dive here:
>https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/
>
>Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.
Any pollster who doesn't think the public remembers what party they
last voted for is laughable. This is her theory????
>
>> 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?
>
>She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.
Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.
>
>>> 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.
>
>It's exactly on point as to whether she honestly felt her non-recall
>weighted numbers were correct.
She was wrong apparently and how did sirens not go off in her head
when her results were so far out of everyone else's? Wouldn't a
responsible pollster ask these questions before publishing?
As for her theory, it's laughable.
Oh and it's her fourth excuse listed.
>
>>> (***) 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?
>
>Again, she can't know there is a problem until after the election.
Wrong. If you see that you're an "outlyer" it behooves you to verify
your work. She destroyed her career by resting on her laurels of her
reputation and ignored clear signs that the poll was wrong.