From: Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.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, 27 Dec 2024 11:09:33 -0700
Organization: UTB
In article <vkmkgn$3mqvt$3@dont-email.me>, noway@nowhere.com says...
>
> On 12/27/2024 7:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> > <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/26/2024 6:22 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> >>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
> >>>> What examination would you have her do?
> >>>
> >>> Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
> >>> professions but again, I've answered your question already.
> >>
> >> There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
> >> your answer was absurd.
> >
> > And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
> > methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
> > previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.
>
> The only thing she would have found was Trump would be +6 with recall
> weighting. And, she would have noted that had she recall weighted in
> 2016 and 2020, she would have gotten it wrong.
>
> What should she have done next? That's easy: don't use recall weighting
> and publish the poll as Harris +3.
Notice: Trump won.