From: Josh Rosenbluth <noway@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 08:17:07 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 12/28/2024 6:25 AM, NoBody wrote:
> 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.
According to you, she should have not published her raw polls in 2016
and 2020, instead adjusting them to be in line with other polls (after
closer examination). If she had done so, she would have been wrong. By
*not* doing so, she was right. Nonsense!