Remember Rush’s warning about polling PsyOps:

"The polls are just being used as another tool of voter suppression. The polls are an attempt to not reflect public opinion, but to shape it.
Yours. They want to depress the heck out of you." pic.twitter.com/DJevhHoXrc

— TransOdius (@TransOdius) November 1, 2024

The Selzer poll isn't even an outlier, it's just plain fake.

To give you a sense of how fake it is, according to Selzer the top two issues for voters in Iowa were "Democracy" and "Abortion," LOL.

Just for reference, since 2020 the GOP has gone from +3% Republican voters registrations to +10%, and in this year's early/mail-in voting the GOP is up 11% relative to the Dems compared to 2020 early/mail-in voting.

We'll find out very early on Tuesday night if that Selzer poll is accurate.

AggieUSMC said:

---

We'll find out very early on Tuesday night if that Selzer poll is accurate.

---

Yeah, it shares a characteristic with all other polls. It is either right, or it isn't.

Seniors in Iowa support Harris by 19 according to Selzer.

They supported Trump by 9 in 2020 and 4 in 2016.

Basically would require an unbelievable shift. https://t.co/LDHG82MgCP

— Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) November 2, 2024

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

The Selzer poll is stunning. Ann Selzer has a longstanding reputation as a highly skilled pollster in the Iowa market, AND for releasing results even if they contradict conventional wisdom/other polls.

Note that this certainly doesn't mean that Harris is actually ahead in Iowa. Trump leading in the state would be well within the mathematical margin of error. But if Iowa is even kind of competitive, Trump is cooked.

Shouldn't make too much of any single data point (even this one), but the interpretations are:

1) Trump is cooked.

2) Selzer has totally lost her mojo and/or become a partisan shill

3) This poll is a fluke outlier (things that have a 1% chance of happening happen all the time)

---

my thoughts:

1. this is easily the most eye-popping poll of the election for multiple reasons, and certainly an outlier

2. trump is not losing IA

3. the margin is eye-popping, but 47-44 is much different than, say, 51-48. expect that remaining 9% will break heavily for trump.

4. this is a gutsy poll result to release. recent speculation in lib pundit land has been that pollsters are herding to the same thin margins partly in fear of releasing results that are too friendly to dems after errors in 2016 and 2020. if so, it would suggest a correction in polling in toward trump, perhaps even an overcorrection. that such a well respected pollster (known for resisting herding) put out a result like this is being treated in lib-land as evidence of this correction. this matters because trump supporters' belief that it's self-evident trump will outperform polls again has been a load-bearing pillar of pro-trump confidence throughout the campaign.

🚨 BREAKING: Trump campaign issues scathing response to the Des Moines Register/Selzer poll showing Harris leading Iowa by 3 points.

They pointed to the poll dropped just ~1 hour before from Emerson College showing Trump ahead by 10 points.

They also noted that Selzer hides her… pic.twitter.com/65gg3Ntjxx

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024

[Stop derailing this thread. We removed your derail twice. Third time is a timeout. Continue and it will increase in length -- Staff]

Thats just malpractice

These swings are too incredible to believe. There is no way it can be true. This lady's status of being the gold standard for Iowa polling is about to go in the toilet

Some Dems registered as Republicans to mess with the Caucus. For example, I don't believe Black Hawk County is only D+4 and Linn County is D+6. Just depends on the where the actually GOP registration advantage lies.

R+10 Nothing to worry about
R+5 It's dicey (IF you believe Selzer)
R+2 It's Harris (IF you believe Selzer)

ETA: How often do you see a 10 point change in voter registration in state during a 4 year period? Usually it's slower moving.

Quo Vadis? said:

---

🚨 BREAKING: Trump campaign issues scathing response to the Des Moines Register/Selzer poll showing Harris leading Iowa by 3 points.

They pointed to the poll dropped just ~1 hour before from Emerson College showing Trump ahead by 10 points.

They also noted that Selzer hides her… pic.twitter.com/65gg3Ntjxx

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024

---

Very last line of the statement is huge, they show Trump leading independents 55-42. If that translates nationally it will be a blowout of epic proportions.

Here is the Emerson IA poll cross tabs. Because, you know, someone is actually transparent.

Full crosstabs below:https://t.co/G9uuIbBAmF

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024

Final polls from the most reputable polls

Marist
Wisconsin 🔵 Harris +2
Pennsylvania 🔵 Harris +2
Michigan 🔵 Harris +2

Marquette
Wisconsin 🔵 Harris +1

Selzer
Iowa 🔵 Harris +3

New York Times/Siena
**TOMORROW**

— umichvoter 🏳️‍🌈 (@umichvoter) November 2, 2024

Marist is reputable?

I thought Marist was a crap poll, no?

It's terrible

Last gasp attempt to soften turnout in Tuesday.

FireAg said:

---

I thought Marist was a crap poll, no?

---

Silver gives Marist an A rating, mean bias of Dem +0.3 (essentially identical to AtlasIntel).

Marist missed huge last time…

Quote:

---

essentially identical to AtlasIntel

---

One of them is going to take a hit this go around.

aftershocks of the selzer poll are rippling throughout the system. trump's polymarket odds collapsed to as close as +5 after being +17 just before the poll results dropped and +33 a few days ago. now seem to be trickling back up.

YokelRidesAgain said:

---

FireAg said:

---

I thought Marist was a crap poll, no?

---

Silver gives Marist an A rating, mean bias of Dem +0.3 (essentially identical to AtlasIntel).

---

It is off in the Rust Belt states and that is all that matters.

I'm curious.

Did y'all discuss the recent Kansas poll that had trump at +5? And I believe the last poll of Ohio had trump at +3?

The Iowa poll falls in line with those polls - all (iirc) done by pollsters who specialize in their own state and have a history of accurate results.

So maybe the issue really is that many national polls are being purposefully skewed either 1) out of fear of underestimating trump like in 2016 and 2020, or 2) in order to give the impression that trump is doing much better than he actually is.

I mean... trump seems to have a pretty rock-solid ceiling that he simply cannot crack. There really is nowhere for him to go but down.

Except she didn't release her data. She should do that like others do.

Quote:

---

2) in order to give the impression that trump is doing much better than he actually is.

---

oh yeah. for sure that checks out. all of these polling places are in the tank for Trump. you betcha.

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2024/11/02/exclusive-rasmussen-head-pollster-predicts-trump-landslide-likens-to-1980-reagan-carter-election-major-political-realignment/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0R6EqHzPTFN78JTEpjMgaNChBaBC_cIc2by0T0eWb1PHn-GlFF-QK3zHs_aem_AFfsxwtmtyuQqqoe6ynvbA

Rasmussen predicting electoral landslide for Trump…

sam callahan said:

---

Quote:

---

2) in order to give the impression that trump is doing much better than he actually is.

---

oh yeah. for sure that checks out. all of these polling places are in the tank for Trump. you betcha.

---

A lot of them clearly have an agenda. Or do you seriously believe that dems put out fake "psyop" polls but republicans *never* do? Plus there's the overcorrection issue, which I think is even more distorting than the polls from groups that are clearly in the trump tank, because this overcorrection seems to have been widespread.

Nate Cohn says pollsters don't trust their own methods and data so they just skew their results to show stronger GOP support because they fear financial repercussions. Then they should go out of business. Tilting polls should be career-ending. https://t.co/GoF3V4QoBk pic.twitter.com/PirlsZcxGD

— Matt Ortega (@MattOrtega) November 1, 2024

agjacent said:

---

I'm curious.

Did y'all discuss the recent Kansas poll that had trump at +5? And I believe the last poll of Ohio had trump at +3?

The Iowa poll falls in line with those polls - all (iirc) done by pollsters who specialize in their own state and have a history of accurate results.

So maybe the issue really is that many national polls are being purposefully skewed either 1) out of fear of underestimating trump like in 2016 and 2020, or 2) in order to give the impression that trump is doing much better than he actually is.

I mean... trump seems to have a pretty rock-solid ceiling that he simply cannot crack. There really is nowhere for him to go but down.

---

If you really want to know what States are really I play you don't look at random polls. You look at where the candidates are spending their money. Kamala isn't scheduling rallies or buying ads in Ohio or Kansas is she?

There are some random polls showing Minnesota in play but Trump ain't spending too many resources there is he?

Do we actually have a quote from a pollster that said that, or is Nate Cohen surmising that is what they are doing?

agjacent said:

---

I'm curious.

Did y'all discuss the recent Kansas poll that had trump at +5? And I believe the last poll of Ohio had trump at +3?

The Iowa poll falls in line with those polls - all (iirc) done by pollsters who specialize in their own state and have a history of accurate results.

So maybe the issue really is that many national polls are being purposefully skewed either 1) out of fear of underestimating trump like in 2016 and 2020, or 2) in order to give the impression that trump is doing much better than he actually is.

I mean... trump seems to have a pretty rock-solid ceiling that he simply cannot crack. There really is nowhere for him to go but down.

---

#2 is laughable as the vast majority of pollsters, like the legacy media, are completely in the tank for the Dems. As for #1 they simply cannot poll the low propensity voters that Trump's ground team is registering. Actually they could if they spent a lot of money but they won't do that so they go back to what they know.