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, 29 Dec 2024 09:31:11 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:17:07 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
<noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>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!
What's nonsense is that you've decided what I've said when the clear
text says otherwise. I did not say she should not have published the
polls but that when she found the results out of bed with the others,
she should have looked for a problem.
Regardless, you spending all your time talking about 2016 and 2020 is
because you can't defend her putting out a poll THIS year that was way
out and she never bothered to check out why.
Laughter.