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: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 09:43:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/21/2024 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> 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????
>
>Yes. Nate Cohen of the NY Times had an excellent article detailing the
>good and bad of recall weighting, and how there remains no consensus on
>whether to use it. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled.
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/upshot/polling-methods-election.html
>
Sounds like a terrible practice for a person who was supposedly so
professional and meticulous. Again, her results were so obviously
wrong that she should have looked at what was wrong before rushing to
publish an obviously incorrect poll. Naturally when she does her
postmortem she lists it FOURTH on the list of "theories" (excuses).
>>>> 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.
>
>The same thing happened in 2016 and 2020 when she had Trump far ahead of
>what all the other pollsters had. She did not reexamine then (and stood
>alone in being right), and did not do so now (and stood alone in being
>wrong).
Yep. That's why she no longer has any crediblility. When you make an
obviously wrong poll once, you'd best see why it was wrong and fix it
(unless you intend to mislead and gives a foundation for a lawsuit).
>
>But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
>Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.
I know if I personally was so off base in my profession, I would make
damn sure I found out why so it wouldn't happen again.