FTAG 2000 said:

---

Somewhere there is a Harris campaign line item expense in her name.

---

I think you mean "in the name of her shadow corporation that can't be traced back to her."

Trump breaks many people. He doesn't discriminate, he just breaks them.

She got paid by the Harris campaign to post the bs poll in Iowa.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

FTAG 2000 said:

---

Somewhere there is a Harris campaign line item expense in her name.

---

I think you mean "in the name of her shadow corporation that can't be traced back to her."

---

Good point. It won't be that out in the open. But somewhere she got a seven figure pay day for that nonsense poll.

SwigAg11 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

The raw data could have been pristine. The weighted results are what got published.

Lets say you did a poll and white males responded for 30% of the calls, but you know they are 40% of the electorate in Iowa. You weigh the responses from the raw data to give an estimated return of that demo for the published poll.

---

You actually have it backwards - she published unweighted results because she admitted that she believes the sample she was able to obtain would match election results. The problem with that, is that her sample, based on recall vote, was 13 points more Democrat than the 2020 election results. She refused to take into account that Republicans were much less likely to answer pollsters.

Also, if you start looking back at her previous polls, she was good at estimating Democrat results. She was always terribly off in the Republican caucuses. As Iowa became more Republican, she became less and less accurate.

---

She also refused to take into account that a state that just this past summer approved a 6 week abortion ban is VERY conservative...otherwise there's no way that gets passed.

Nope, she just polled a bunch of female Democrats and published the two biggest issues were abortion and "muh democracy." What a complete fraud.

She's a lying dog face pony soldier.

The Iowa poll will go down as one of the greatest trolls in Political history. On the scale of "Dewy defeats Truman"

Gonna also have to go after other "pollster"' for that.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't think it was an accidental error.

Done to manipulate and suppress votes.

---

Agreed. You don't miss by that much on accident which just reinforces the point made during these election cycles. Polling is not meant to predict outcomes, but to sway opinion and results.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I wouldn't call her a pollster. Maybe more of a democrat propagandist.

Having been in Iowa in September for several days, I knew her "polling" was nowhere near accurate. AgResearch, an Iowa resident on this board said the same thing. It was a complete fabrication, intended to sway voters.

---

SHILL

thats the word you are looking for

Some polling…certainly true…but I think it's a mistake to assume all pollsters have nefarious motives…

Democrat Champagne Lady must have been listening to Seltzer.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=972289388059120&vanity=newspoliticsissues

AgResearch said:

---

Hahaha...I loved seeing that poll come out. It was so hilarious to see people freaking out about it. Iowa won't go Dem for a long time as long as the Republicans stick to good candidates vs McCain/Romney turds!

---

I'll be back in western Iowa next week. I'll enjoy discussing this woman. I'm guessing my in-laws will have some choice words to say about her.

Prosperdick said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

The raw data could have been pristine. The weighted results are what got published.

Lets say you did a poll and white males responded for 30% of the calls, but you know they are 40% of the electorate in Iowa. You weigh the responses from the raw data to give an estimated return of that demo for the published poll.

---

You actually have it backwards - she published unweighted results because she admitted that she believes the sample she was able to obtain would match election results. The problem with that, is that her sample, based on recall vote, was 13 points more Democrat than the 2020 election results. She refused to take into account that Republicans were much less likely to answer pollsters.

Also, if you start looking back at her previous polls, she was good at estimating Democrat results. She was always terribly off in the Republican caucuses. As Iowa became more Republican, she became less and less accurate.

---

She also refused to take into account that a state that just this past summer approved a 6 week abortion ban is VERY conservative...otherwise there's no way that gets passed.

Nope, she just polled a bunch of female Democrats and published the two biggest issues were abortion and "muh democracy." What a complete fraud.

---

People misconstrued the polls that 35% of people said democracy was their biggest concern. Leftists believed everyone of those people were voting for Harris, but Rogan and Elon talked for an hour the night before the election about how important this election was for democracy to stop Dems from packing the courts and handing out statehood to DC and PR.

That 35% of respondents was probably a lot of people voting for Trump to save democracy.

CNN et al cannot wrap their brains around that. They could never fathom that their team was the true threat to democracy trying to play king maker with their oh so democratic primaries

SwigAg11 said:

---

🚨 BREAKING: Trump calls for investigation into disgraced Iowa pollster Ann Selzer - who released a poll showing Harris winning the state by 3 points just before Election Day.

She was wrong by 16 - and is now "moving on" to other ventures.

TRUMP: "She knew exactly what she was… pic.twitter.com/FlQNIHrF0v

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 17, 2024

---

Question: assuming it can be proven that this was a "push poll" AND there's a Democrat payment to her* for it… what's the actual crime and appropriate punishment?

(Beyond the nebulous election interference claims about #s of folks who do or do not show based on their feel for how the race is going based on a specific poll.)

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Paul Krugman went on to have notoriety after he declared the internet to be a passing fad.

---

Krugman also said Trump's election in 2016 would crash the stock market and we didn't spend enough on Covid relief.

Dude is a vibrator short a few batteries.

Jeff Blehar has a different opinion - it's a screw up because progressive women respond to polls at higher rates than normal women, and Selzer refused to adjust her methodology. Of course you could call the refusal to adjust intentional since it benefited the Dems.

Give Iowa Pollster Ann Selzer Her Due in Retirement

Quote:

---

For decades, Selzer has been the gold standard of Iowa polling (the Iowa Poll holds A+ ratings on both the Silver Bulletin and FiveThirtyEight poll aggregators). Selzer, working from registered voter lists rather than random-digit-dialing and leaving her results unweighted, has not only consistently delivered accurate results in close races (one big miss: Iowa 2004, which she predicted for Kerry), but more importantly has often seen numbers coming that nobody else in the field did. When others scoffed at the idea that an unknown black senator named Barack Obama could ever possibly defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, Ann Selzer nailed it. When others scoffed at the idea that he could win Indiana that year, Ann Selzer called it down to the exact +1 margin. She later caught Joni Ernst's surge in the race to replace Democratic warhorse Tom Harkin in her 2014 race against the flailing Bruce Braley (who also saw his vacated seat go to the Republicans that year).

When the mainstream media cavalierly assumed that Donald Trump would surely get wiped out in the general election in Iowa in 2016 look at how Ted Cruz defeated him in the caucus, after all! Selzer was herself the first one to show Trump up a shocking amount, mid-to-high single digits, and she was only a few points off his final margin of victory in the state in both 2016 and 2020. More than any other pollster, ironically enough, it was Ann Selzer who convinced intelligent poll-watchers all the way back in 2016 that Iowa had flipped forever into MAGA Country, so before you laugh at her now, understand that she led the way and had to surprise thousands in the industry each time in order to do so.

---

Quote:

---

If you look at this list of Selzer & Co. final pre-election polls for every race since 1996, you will notice something about the final run of them, dating from 2016 specifically yes, the Trump era. The error has always been in favor of Democrats. She whiffed on her 2018 call for Iowa governor by nearly 5 percent (and thus mistakenly had Kim Reynolds losing), but the error usually averaged out to about +2 in favor of the Dems . . . until it absolutely exploded this year. What happened?

Because we cannot know for sure, it's time for some mild speculation. Selzer famously refuses to adjust or weight her polling numbers, instead trusting in her (up until now) proven ability to get the proper regional and demographic spread. This task has traditionally been easier in Iowa than most states, simply because of its overwhelming racial homogeneity. But one is tempted to wonder whether the methods Selzer made her name by using are of less value in an era of both extreme polarization as well as a special problem unique to our present culture that I like to call the "Revenge of the Karens" a severe overresponse from progressive women to polling phone calls, because they (disproportionately relative to the rest of the American population) feel self-actualized by registering their opinion, whether to a machine or especially to a live human being. When the Des Moines Register wrote up Selzer's final shock 4744 Harris poll at the beginning of November, they cited an apparent surge of female support that had put her over the top.

This was entirely illusory; note that Harris ended up with just 42.7 percent of the vote. The only explanation for the wild miss is a disproportionate female over-response: Understand that because of Selzer's methodology, this is not an intentional oversampling or overweighting of polled women, but rather their natural response rate.

---

CampSkunk said:

---

Jeff Blehar has a different opinion - it's a screw up because progressive women respond to polls at higher rates than normal women, and Selzer refused to adjust her methodology.

---

Well, he's wrong.

Bet she got a hell of a severance package out of Kamala's billion

how can that be ONLY a 11.5% error ??!

when it was literally SEVENTEEN POINTS off?!?

she said it was Harris +3 and final result was Trump +14

LMCane said:

---

how can that be ONLY a 11.5% error ??!

when it was literally SEVENTEEN POINTS off?!?

she said it was Harris +3 and final result was Trump +14

---

maybe she identifies a weatherman now or is that weatherperson

Possibly, but his theory seems more plausible than wild speculation that he did it to try and help Harris. If that's the case, why didn't she try to help Clinton in 2016? Was she trying to help Ernst, a Republican, become Senator? It's more likely that she screwed up because her hubris didn't allow her to update her methodology.

Aston04 said:

---

She wasn't 11.5% off.

She had Harris up 3%

Trump won 56% to 42.7%

So she was net off by 16.6%. Even more of a complete embarrassment. Obviously designed to energize Democratic turnout and suppress Republicans.

---

OP maybe doesn't remember that subtracting a negative is the same as adding.

TheBonifaceOption said:

---

Paul Krugman went on to have notoriety after he declared the internet to be a passing fad.

---

Krugman is known for being wrong on everything, Jim Cramer and Taylor Swift think he sucks at prognosticating. I remember Krugman going all in on how we were in for a massive Global Depression after Trump was elected in 2016 and being full on doom and gloom.

As for the Iowa chick it looks like she sold out. This was just too obvious of a miss and timed to try and boost Kamala. Not only should she never be taken seriously again anyone that takes her seriously should get the same treatment.

When this poll dropped a lot of people freaked out, and I guess that was the goal.

FWIW, Halperin will have Seltzer on his show in a few minutes.