is currently off by 17% with 90% of the vote counted

bruh...

From #1 Pollster to #1 Jokester.

17%?

Is that a lot?

 

Selzer tried to swing an election. This is called election interferance.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Selzer tried to swing an election. This is called election interferance.

You can't hold her accountable since what she did is literally what all pollsters have done forever.

Polls are not intended to measure public opinion.
They are intended to shape public opinion.

is currently off by 17% with 90% of the vote counted

bruh...

#notprovenincourt

#calculatedrisk

#notprovenincourt

#calculatedrisk

#didyoucashyourbetticket

Selzer tried to swing an election. This is called election interferance.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Everything is not election interference.    This is a crazy statement. 

Everything is not election interference.    This is a crazy statement.

The #1 Pollster released a crazy poll result that bordered on retarded.  Not only election interference but a desperate one.

Everything is not election interference.    This is a crazy statement.

i've seen several people in media claiming it IS election interference. 

When a poll is released a couple of days before an election, contradicts every other poll, and was off by 17 points, it's not a poll.  It's a last ditch effort to create hope in the minds of Harris voters so they show up to cast ballots.  It is also attempting to convince Trump voters his chances of winning are very slim, so why bother voting for someone who can't win?

Polls affect how people behave during elections.  Some people will change their vote in the booth based on the last poll's prediction, simply because they don't trust themselves to know the issues and positions of candidates.  So, they trust the people answering polls to know more.

my mom used to vote for whoever was ahead in the polls for one reason -- to feel good about having voted for the winner.  You above most here should know how it feels to vote for the loser.

So, don't bash the concept.  it's been the same since newspapers and TVs were invented.  Information drives decisions.  Bad information drives bad decisions.  Nothing crazy about it.

When the numbers came out as contrary to all other polls giving Harris at least a 4 point reversal over previous polls, it immediately should have been recognized as the outlier it was, and the "data review" she is now doing after being proven wrong by 17 points should have been done before publishing.

Stop pretending you can lecture us on anything here.  Your conclusions are wrong, and your supporting data is invisible.

Ann Selzer is putting an (R) next to her own name now.

"Retired"

 

Yes she is leaving the political polling business and moving on to other ventures.
Now which left wing organization is she seeking to have a new career with?
So instead of retirement it just might be retierment.
Her BS polling in Iowa sure sounded like Russian disinformation.
Send her an FBI target letter I say. Did she also get any Harris campaign money?



 

Yes she is leaving the political polling business and moving on to other ventures.
Now which left wing organization is she seeking to have a new career with?
So instead of retirement it just might be retierment.
Her BS polling in Iowa sure sounded like Russian disinformation.
Send her an FBI target letter I say. Did she also get any Harris campaign money?

It stretches the limits of credulity when she, a political polling GIANT, says she doesn't know what the (D) and (R) symbols by the respondent's names mean.

Is she lying?  Did she suffer a traumatic head injury?  Early stages of Alzheimer's?  Did the guy doing all the work before this poll die? quit? was fired?

This was not a glitch.  This was a complete failure that was duplicated by no other pollsters.

(D) and (R)?  The fact it's a political poll would clue in the majority of regular people as to the meanings.  Political polling experts would be closer to 99%.  I would have said 100%, but she's proven that's not the case.

Trump is suing her.

Trump is suing her.

Her comments regarding being sued are like, what would be my motive?  If it was an attempt tp influence the election, I could have done this long before now.

Those are not good arguments.  She may have merely been negligent, taking a skewed poll that contradicted every other poll just a couple of days before the election and creating a news storm saying Harris was ahead before losing by 10 points.     There's such a thing as malpractice when someone ignores the real consequences of their "mistakes". 

As Trump's side is saying, they were forced to redirect limited resources and funds to increase campaigning in Iowa, a state they believed they were winning.  had the poll not existed, they would have still won Iowa and used that money and time to campaign harder in races that were closer.

i think they have a case.  Polling in general elections matter especially for the candidates trying to make decisions on ad buys, staff sizes, etc.