It's one poll. Thought you Rs wanted to move on and roll your sleeves up to get down to the real work?
Top pollster Ann Selzer to retire after bombshell Iowa poll ended in huge miss
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
All the leftist polls were bad lol ironically Rasmussen was the best one and every time I shared it here the usual leftists called it propaganda nonsense. Democrats are literally their own worst problem.
OK…but then why is Selzer the point of this “glee”? And in typical MAGAt conspiracy fashion, MAGAts are pointing to some “left wing-Selzer” conspiracy that she intentionally misrepresented her poll because she is a tool of Democrats? Bizarre. Anyone with half a brain and reasonably acquainted with her volume if Iowa election work knows better. Sadly , buffoons like you, scruffy and other continue to spout your ignorance and lies in your effort to “own the libs”…
There's 16 pages of celebration in a single thread about how badly you guys were gonna win the election based entirely on this "poll". Now it's time to eat your crow.
I can eat my crow… what I fail to see is the “piling on” of the pollster who missed. Other than a “bad poll” you guys move into the “cast left-wing conspiracy” mode, ignoring the volume of her previous Iowa election work, which honestly has been second to none in the history of Iowa polling. Rasmussen polls have been comparatively inaccurate to Selzer polling over the past decade or so.
It's stupid. We're seeing it in this thread. Juvenile is an understatement.
My post was about the endorsements that actually happened Professor.
Start an appreciation thread. No one forced her to retire.
Start an appreciation thread. No one forced her to retire.
To stick it to the libs, sure. But if you think he'll do anything about prices or deporting 20 million people you're going to be disappointed.
Reread your posts.
He lost millions of jobs his first administration and setup of inflationary conditions. I have zero confidence he won't screw things up even worse this time around.
Because Trump support is impossible to poll.
I immediately knew her poll was fake because she factored in that Trump was going to drop 20% among rural voters.
This is not true. The poll was so far out of reality that she shouldn't have signed off on it. Is this really a difficult concept?
She should be able to release a poll and also be mocked when it is so far out of reality. None of your posts in this thread make a lot of sense
What is bizarre is the reaction to the poll the weekend prior to the election. Anyone that followed the election prior to election day would have known that the results of that poll was not even remotely accurate. She did a poll in the summer showing Trump beating Biden by 15-20 points and then releases one showing Harris winning by 4? That is just non-sensical on her part.
Seems like a valid question to wonder how someone that is so well known for her Iowa election work would release such a poll
What’s difficult about it?
Did you read what sgd said about tge “results” she posted VEFORE the poll was released?
She said they “shocked” her but that she was posting the poll because she believed in her methodology and experience she had gained over the years. Hey, she missed! It happens. Ernie Els 5 putted the first hole of The Masters a few years ago… Shit happens… and “shit” is not always a conspiracy!
Don’t we give folks a second chance if they screw up once in America any more? I mean let’s be honest… take a look at your boy Donald…how many (more) second chances has he had in his life of bad judgement and kerfluffles? Surely Ann Selzer deserves the same courtesy, no?
How so?
She ran a poll about 6 weeks prior to her final poll that showed Harris was only 4 points behind Trump shortly after she entered the campaign. In a few weeks, her numbers indicated Harris had pulled even or slightly ahead..it wasn’t that non-sensical, really. It turned out she was wrong… you say (without ANY proof or evidence) she fudged her polling data…Look at her last Iowa Poll work and tell me why you would think she would fudge” her numbers…and show me using her polling data from last election cycles, how she might be a “tool” of the Democrats.
Nate Silver actually wrote a piece well before her poll basically saying that there weren’t enough outlying polls. That because they were just trying to play it safe pollsters were just pooling around 51-49 and the corresponding state polls to reach that conclusion.
That was one of the reasons I believed Trump would win.
This isn't a "miss". That's the point. Being off by 16 points is either gross incompetence (which merits mocking when you're so public with it) or she was paid off. Which also deserves mocking. You don't Oopsy your way to being 16 points of a 95% confidence poll within 3 points of "certainty".
The deportations are coming. And inflation is coming down fast.
Cope cuz covid. All biden job growth has been rebounding that was already in effect and government subsidies (also data manipulation by the left)
You're a disgrace.
She knew what she was doing. They were worried about Wisconsin and they got her to post phony results to try and give false hope to Wisconsin.
My boy Donald?
Never said it was a conspiracy, just said it made no sense to release this poll since it was since an outlier and how the poll was used for analysis going into the election.
If I was a pollster and had that type of result, I would check to ensure it made sense.
The poll was the equivalent of Atlas putting out a poll stating that Trump was going to win New York by 3
PuppeTrump not happy. She’ll soon feel the wrath of Matt Gaetz, unless there is a slumber party in his neighborhood
Seems like hers was off by more than most.
It's not really fair to say all the polls were off. They showed a tight race, and most gave trump a slight edge in swing states. That's what happened.
Almost Nobody had Trump winning the popular vote, that was a bit surprising, but even then it was within the margin of error.
I think they did better than 2020.
Let me show you some examples, just to help you so you don't believe what you hear from your media
I get keeping up energy for your side, but, these people knew the poll was not realistic, but, i guess it was good for ratings
538 analysis using the polls they utilize shows it was a little better than 2016 and 2020
State polls missed in the same direction as 2016 and 2020
Statistical bias of all polls published in the last 21 days of presidential elections since 2016 by state, in states decided by less than 15 points in the 2024 presidential election and that were reporting at least 95 percent of the vote as of 6 a.m. Eastern on Nov. 8, 2024Table with 4 columns and 10 rows.
| State | 2016 | 2020 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| AZ | D+1.7 | D+3.0 | - |
| FL | D+3.1 | D+5.6 | D+6.6 |
| GA | D+1.4 | D+0.7 | D+1.0 |
| IA | D+6.2 | D+8.2 | D+8.2 |
| MI | D+5.7 | D+4.3 | D+2.5 |
| NC | D+5.3 | D+3.5 | D+2.0 |
| NV | R+1.5 | D+2.2 | D+3.0 |
| OH | D+7.3 | D+6.5 | D+3.7 |
| PA | D+5.0 | D+4.3 | D+2.1 |
| WI | D+6.0 | D+6.6 | D+1.6 |
538
But the news is not all good. While polls had a historically good year in terms of error, they had a medium-to-bad one in terms of statistical bias, which measures whether polls are missing the outcome in the same direction. By our math, state polls overestimated support for Harris by an average of 2.7 points on margin in competitive states.
That's lower than the statistical bias of the polls in 2016 and 2020, which underestimated Trump by 3.2 and 4.1 points, respectively. But it's higher than the bias in the 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections.
Well, at least she doesn’t lie about having attended an elite private university. I’ll give her credit for that.
Trump demands investigation of pollster who showed Iowa lead for Kamala Harris
"She knew exactly what she was doing," Trump wrote of pollster J. Ann Selzer, 68, who announced her departure from political polling on Sunday.
...
Trump on Sunday described the poll as "possible ELECTION FRAUD by Ann Selzer and the now discredited 'newspaper' for which she works," adding, "An investigation is fully called for!"
Trump demands investigation of pollster who showed Iowa lead for Kamala Harris
J. Ann Selzer's Nov. 1 poll showed Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa, 47% to 44%. Trump eventually carried the state by 13 points.
www.usatoday.com
It really sucks she's retiring. She had a whole lot of posters here fapping to the thought of Kamala winning Iowa.
So, in your world this is a normal, totally non-authoritarian thing to call for?Trump demands investigation of pollster who showed Iowa lead for Kamala Harris
"She knew exactly what she was doing," Trump wrote of pollster J. Ann Selzer, 68, who announced her departure from political polling on Sunday.
...
Trump on Sunday described the poll as "possible ELECTION FRAUD by Ann Selzer and the now discredited 'newspaper' for which she works," adding, "An investigation is fully called for!"
Trump demands investigation of pollster who showed Iowa lead for Kamala Harris
J. Ann Selzer's Nov. 1 poll showed Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa, 47% to 44%. Trump eventually carried the state by 13 points.www.usatoday.com
In fairness, she did not renew her contract after 2024. She also said she would go back and review data, and also that her poll could have excited the GOP base, and other Iowans, to get out and vote. I don't believe that, I think whatever process she used was flawed. She not only missed big on the presidential race, but 3 of the 4 congressional races as well.
“Over a year ago I advised the Register I would not renew when my 2024 contract expired with the latest election poll as I transition to other ventures and opportunities,” Selzer wrote.
“Polling is a science of estimation, and science has a way of periodically humbling the scientist. So, I’m humbled, yet always willing to learn from unexpected findings,” Selzer wrote. “My integrity means a lot to me. To those who have questioned it, there are likely no words to dissuade.”
“Over a year ago I advised the Register I would not renew when my 2024 contract expired with the latest election poll as I transition to other ventures and opportunities,” Selzer wrote.
“Polling is a science of estimation, and science has a way of periodically humbling the scientist. So, I’m humbled, yet always willing to learn from unexpected findings,” Selzer wrote. “My integrity means a lot to me. To those who have questioned it, there are likely no words to dissuade.”
Phuque Trump. Phuque him and the horse he ride in on.Trump demands investigation of pollster who showed Iowa lead for Kamala Harris
"She knew exactly what she was doing," Trump wrote of pollster J. Ann Selzer, 68, who announced her departure from political polling on Sunday.
...
Trump on Sunday described the poll as "possible ELECTION FRAUD by Ann Selzer and the now discredited 'newspaper' for which she works," adding, "An investigation is fully called for!"
Trump demands investigation of pollster who showed Iowa lead for Kamala Harris
J. Ann Selzer's Nov. 1 poll showed Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa, 47% to 44%. Trump eventually carried the state by 13 points.www.usatoday.com
