Ann Selzer leaving election polling after Iowa whiff https://t.co/jJOop03slV
— POLITICO (@politico) November 17, 2024
She gone. Disgraced.
Remember the pollster that had Harris +3 Iowa, was only 11.5% off?
5,441 Views |
63 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by aggiehawg
She gone. Disgraced.
I know libs are different, but I'd never hire that lady in any role. That was such an egregious error I have to question her competence in general.
Perhaps going on Halperin's podcast and saying she uses outdated methodologies which are far more expensive wasn't the best idea?
I don't think it was an accidental error.
Done to manipulate and suppress votes.
Done to manipulate and suppress votes.
She is a liar pushing propaganda.
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.
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.
She'll be back and lying again
Her new career prospects are most likely HOA President or Reddit forum moderator
Bye! I know you tried your best to influence the election for kammie, but buh bye!
Honest question- did she receive money from the Harris campaign?
I said at the time this was her farewell gift to the Democrats and I love that if anything it motivated even MORE Iowans to come out and vote.TheBonifaceOption said:Ann Selzer leaving election polling after Iowa whiff https://t.co/jJOop03slV
— POLITICO (@politico) November 17, 2024
She gone. Disgraced.
Partisans have ruined legacy media and "polling" is a subset of that corrupt machine.
TheBonifaceOption said:Ann Selzer leaving election polling after Iowa whiff https://t.co/jJOop03slV
— POLITICO (@politico) November 17, 2024
She gone. Disgraced.
Well, she had already resigned before this. I didn't think she's disgraced, based on her previous work. But she's not going out on a high note, for sure.
I have to wonder how the polling questions are written? How slanted are they?
She'll fail up. Probably be running a city in the near future.
Detmersdislocatedshoulder
Joined:
Mar 30, 2020
Posts:
12,903
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i wonder if she thought about how she wasted her vote this election.
She did what she could to help Kamala. It didn't work, , but now she is a lib legend and will make $$ from libs in future.
No, she's disgraced. What she did was blatant lying and manipulation.
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.
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.
Paul Krugman went on to have notoriety after he declared the internet to be a passing fad.
TheBonifaceOption said:
Paul Krugman went on to have notoriety after he declared the internet to be a passing fad.
He's also an economic dunce worshipped by the left.
Wasn't her polling usually considered very accurate until this debacle?
Always a place for her in the DNC,TAMUallen said:
She'll be back and lying again
Lots of wording tricks plus if they conduct the poll over the phone they are more likely to reach a Democrat and if they do reach a conservative many times they will basically tell the pollster what they want to hear so they don't appear "racist" for voting for Trump or not voting for Kamala.dmart90 said:TheBonifaceOption said:Ann Selzer leaving election polling after Iowa whiff https://t.co/jJOop03slV
— POLITICO (@politico) November 17, 2024
She gone. Disgraced.
Well, she had already resigned before this. I didn't think she's disgraced, based on her previous work. But she's not going out on a high note, for sure.
I have to wonder how the polling questions are written? How slanted are they?
They also have VERY detailed lists of D's, R's, as well as I's and if they were ever registered as a D or R.
Rich Baris and a couple of others are the only legitimate pollsters out there. The rest are just extensions of the DNC trying to shape opinions, not poll them.
Yes. But really how hard is it to poll a very red state and get close? Iowa is not a swing state, although she tried to pretend it is this cycle.mm98 said:
Wasn't her polling usually considered very accurate until this debacle?
She became a national joke. No wonder she is hanging it up.
Also admitted she had been massively overcharging the Des Moines Register, her client. So not only was she flat out wrong, she charged a crap ton of money to her client she didn't need to if she had updated her methodologies.Houston Lee said:
She became a national joke. No wonder she is hanging it up.
I'd wager she was fired after that.
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.
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.
Somewhere there is a Harris campaign line item expense in her name.
She has "MSNBC consultant expert on racism and sexism in polling" almost written in stone
All you had to do was watch the interview she did with that liberal Mark guy the day after her poll was released. It was shocking how clueless shew as on basic polling concepts and she didn't even know what R and D stood for in crosstabs. She lost all credibility in that interview.
She shot her shot before retirement.
Yeah, that was jaw dropping. She was so blissfully unaware of what she was saying.IDaggie06 said:
All you had to do was watch the interview she did with that liberal Mark guy the day after her poll was released. It was shocking how clueless shew as on basic polling concepts and she didn't even know what R and D stood for in crosstabs. She lost all credibility in that interview.
By contrast to Rasmussen and Rich Baris explaining their methods and how they read the data and numbers. What she was saying made no sense.
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!
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.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.
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.
That's a shame
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
1h ago
3.7k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
3h ago
794
37:53
1h ago
335
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
10:56
8h ago
2.5k