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: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 06:59:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>On 12/22/2024 6:43 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/21/2024 6:56 AM, NoBody wrote:
>
>{snip}
And Josh snips a bunch of context to avoid replying to the points
raised.
>
>>>> 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).
>
>She was right in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology.
>
>>> 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.
>
>Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
>believe her methodology was wrong.
When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.