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, 28 Dec 2024 09:25:54 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:27:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>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.
Which would have completely turned that poll around (and she'd still
have a job).
Oy....
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.
Her methodology failed which made her unemployed. I'm still not sure
why you're arguing this point.