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: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 07:43:16 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 12/31/2024 4:02 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 08:17:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/30/2024 3:54 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 07:53:13 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
>>> <noway@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Given that reality, should she have published in 2016 and 2020?
>>>
>>> I have already answered your question endless times now.
>>
>> I don't think so. I think you said she should have reviewed why her
>> polls were outliers, but never took a position on whether she should
>> have published them after the examination.
>>
> OMG. It's clear English man.
Evasion noted.
>>>> 2016 and 2020 are relevant because they are used to see whether your
>>>> claims of what she should have done in 2024 (examine and perhaps not
>>>> publish) hold up to scrutiny.
>>>
>>> By not reviewing the poll in 2024, the problem IN 2024 was not found
>>> and has little to do with the previous polls as the problem was clear
>>> THIS eletion.
>>
>> It was not clear 2024 was different than 2016 or 2020 until after the
>> election. So let's assume for the sake of argument she did not, but
>> should have, examined why 2024 was an outlier before publishing. Based
>> on that examination, should she have published? It seems to me the
>> answer has to be the same for 2016, 2020 and 2024.
>
> Laughter.
> It was very clear to anyone paying attention that 2024 was very
> different for party motivation.
So, she should have not published in 2024 after examination and
published in 2016 and 2020 after examination because of this clear party
motivation thing? Laughter, indeed.