Discussion:
Trump Sues Newspaper Over Election Interference
Add Reply
AlleyCat
2024-12-17 18:48:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.

It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

It's a Psyop, idiot.

Fat Tubby Clinton vs Trump in the Polls Now 6 Point Lead

Trump WINS!

Hillary Clinton Widens Lead (AND her ass) Over Donald Trump In New National
Polls

Trump WINS!

Clinton Holds 11-Point National Lead Over Trump: NBC/WSJ Poll

Trump WINS!

Poll: Clinton Opens Up Double-Digit Lead Over Trump

Trump WINS!

"Last week's results showed voters without a college degree supported Clinton
over Trump by 2 points, 47 percent to 45 percent."

Trump WINS!

Hillary Clinton Widens Lead Over Donald Trump In New National Polls
Updated on: August 5, 2016 / 7:12 PM / CBS/AP

Trump WINS!

A week after the conclusion of the Democratic national convention, Hillary
Clinton is continuing to widen her advantage over Donald Trump, according to a
pair of new national polls out Friday.

Trump WINS!

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Clinton is up nine percentage points
over Trump, with the Democratic nominee garnering 47 percent of support
compared to Trump's 38 percent among registered voters nationwide.

Trump WINS!

With third-party candidates included, Clinton maintains her nine-point lead:
forty-three percent to Trump's 34 percent, while Libertarian party nominee Gary
Johnson has 10 percent, and the Green Party's Jill Stein has five percent.

Trump WINS!

A McClatchy/Marist poll shows a more dramatic 15-point lead for Clinton: the
former secretary of state has 48 percent of support among voters nationwide,
versus Trump's 33 percent.

Trump WINS!

Last month, Clinton was ahead by just three points: 42 to 39 percent.
Campaign 2016 ?

Trump WINS!

Third-party candidates made little difference in the McClatchy/Marist poll as
well, with Clinton retaining a double-digit lead: forty-five percent to Trump's
31 percent. Johnson notches 10 percent with Stein at six percent.

Trump WINS!

Clinton's lead in both polls reflects growing support from two key demographic
groups: white and male voters. White voters in the McClatchy/Marist survey, for
instance, supported Clinton 41 percent to Trump's 39 percent.

Trump WINS!

Another poll by GenForward, conducted by the Black Youth Project at the
University of Chicago, surveyed young voters to determine what they thought of
the two presidential candidates.

Trump WINS!

Neither Trump nor Clinton is well-liked by young adults overall, with just 38
percent saying they have a favorable view of Clinton and even fewer -- 21
percent -- saying they have a favorable view of Trump.

Trump WINS!

On Clinton's email scandal, among all young adults in the GenForward poll, 43
percent say Clinton intentionally broke the law in her use of a personal server
while she was secretary of state, and another 20 percent think she did so
unintentionally.

Trump WINS!

As for the rest, 27 percent think she showed poor judgment but did not break
the law, and 8 percent say she did nothing wrong at all.

Trump WINS!

More than half of young whites - 54 percent - think Clinton intentionally
committed a crime, and another 17 percent think she did so unintentionally.

Trump WINS!

Young African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Hispanics view Clinton's actions
in a more sympathetic light, though few clear her of all wrongdoing. Just 32
percent of Hispanics, 29 percent of Asian-Americans and 21 percent of African-
Americans think Clinton intentionally broke the law, with most of the remainder
saying she either did so unintentionally or showed poor judgment that did not
amount to lawbreaking.

Trump WINS!

The WSJ/NBC survey was conducted from July 31 to August 3 among 800 registered
voters. The poll had a 3.5 percent margin for error. The McClatchy/Marist
survey of 1,132 adults was conducted August 1, with a margin of error of 2.9
percentage points. The GenForward poll of 1,940 adults age 18-30 was conducted
July 9-20. The margin of error is 3.8 percentage points.

Trump WINS!
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-17 19:30:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
AlleyCat
2024-12-17 19:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
"Falsifying" can be a broad term.

No... no one changed the numbers(that we know of), but there ARE infinite ways you can "falsify" a poll to go the way you want it to.

Polling of and in certain demographics, being just one.

We'll have to wait and see what EXACTLY Trump's lawyers will accuse these media outlets of. Until then, I'm going with...

... telling people they don't need to vote, because their candidate is too far behind to win, with "faked" polls.

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration
AlleyCat
2024-12-17 21:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.

The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

It WILL put fear into those outlets who said things that were simply untrue, being a "rapist", to name just one.

Expect MANY Congressional hearings for those like Adam Schiff and his RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!, being subpoenaed to bring their evidence.

Schiff, for years kept saying he had evidence... never brought any into any hearing. Not one time.

It's time to punish those who rely on "word of mouth" being "evidence" and destroying people's lives in the interim.

It's ALWAYS months to years before the truth can be told and we're tired of that shit.

Either cough up the evidence, or YOU'RE going to be the one punished.

It must be a sad existence to believe what everyone on the left says, and then go about as if it WAS true.

There are fucking morons here, that still quote old lies as if they were true.

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-18 00:46:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Post by AlleyCat
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-18 01:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/

I can't find the full complaint but the article quoted from it:

"Selzer’s polling ‘miss’ was not an astonishing coincidence — it was
intentional."

That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
Chris Ahlstrom
2024-12-18 13:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer’s polling ‘miss’ was not an astonishing coincidence — it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
Trump has been a bully all his life.

He's in sore need of a good ol' country ass-whuppin'.
--
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Yeah, Linus is in the US.
His source trees are in Finland.
OK, someone give him access -fast- ...... ;-)
-- ***@nwrain.net, because of problems with the kernel
Skeeter
2024-12-18 14:23:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <vjuhhh$29s28$***@dont-email.me>, ***@teleworm.us
says...
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
Trump has been a bully all his life.
He's in sore need of a good ol' country ass-whuppin'.
That leaves you out of the picture.
AlleyCat
2024-12-18 18:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:09:04 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom says...
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Trump has been a bully all his life.
That's how you become a billionaire and not a Usenet troll.

=====

The judge hasn't entered the JUDGMENT OF GUILT yet, so no... CERTAINLY not a "convicted felon".

Rubenfeld emphasized that Trump is not yet a convicted felon because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT.

See? Pansy-ass little child thinks he's smarter than a REAL lawyer.

Has the JUDGE entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT? HAS he, Juan Merchan, approved the verdict and enter a final judgment?

Nope and nope, so no... Trump is still NOT A CONVICTED FELON. Doesn't REALLY matter though... does it? (see below)

You should simply have read this article which explains it... even in New York:

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS NOT ENTERED A JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained THAT IN NEW YORK,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

You lose again, loser.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

=============================================================================

Why TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT After His Conviction - NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-still-run-president-guilty-verdict-conviction-rcna154801

May 30, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president after his hush money conviction? The former president was convicted on 34 felony counts of
falsifying business records and will be sentenced on July 11.


=====

Can Trump Still Run For President? Can He Still Vote? - CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/can-trump-still-run-for-president-what-matters/index.html

May 30, 2024 - Now that a New York jury has convicted former President Donald Trump of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, the next
obvious question is: Can a convicted felon run for president?

The US Constitution lays out just three requirements for presidential candidates. They must:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

Trump Is Now A Convicted Felon: Can He Still Run For President? - USA TODAY -

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/30/donald-trump-convicted-felony-president/73904298007/

May 30, 20241:09. Donald Trump is the first former president convicted of a crime in U.S. history, BUT IT WON'T STOP HIM FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
AGAIN. His conviction on Thursday does not bar him from ...

=====

Trump Guilty Plea: Can He Still Run For President? Questions Answered

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/2024/05/31/donald-trump-guilty-what-happens-now-7-major-questions-answered-jail-president-vote-cohen-
daniels/73920427007/

May 31, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president in 2024? Yes. The U.S. Constitution does not bar anyone from running for president after they become
a felon. The only qualifications are the following:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

YES, INDICTED TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT, But Winning Is A ...

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1164822171/trump-run-president-campaign-arrest-charges-voters-indictment

Mar 22, 2023 - Yes, Trump can run for president. Fortunately for Trump, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting candidates with criminal
records from holding office. In fact, an individual only has to be ...

=====

What Happens After Trump Is Convicted In NY Trial? | TIME

https://time.com/6980638/what-happens-if-donald-trump-convicted/

May 21, 2024 - CAN TRUMP STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT? YES. A felony conviction will not disqualify Trump from continuing his presidential campaign, even
if he were jailed.

=====

Could Trump Become President After Being Convicted Of A Crime? - Los ...

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-04-15/trump-trial-president-constitution-conviction

Apr 15, 2024 - Published April 15, 2024 Updated May 30, 2024 3:04 PM PT. WASHINGTON -. Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted
of felony crimes. A New York jury on Wednesday found him ...

COULD TRUMP BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME?

YES.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAW THAT PREVENTS A FELON FROM HOLDING THE NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICE.
Siri Cruise
2024-12-18 21:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Trump has been a bully all his life.
That's how you become a billionaire and not a Usenet troll.
It is easier for a camel to pass an eye of a needle then a rich
man to enter heaven.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Skeeter
2024-12-18 13:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-18 15:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Payback for what?
Skeeter
2024-12-18 18:03:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Payback for what?
Defamation.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-18 21:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Payback for what?
Defamation.
What defamation?
Skeeter
2024-12-18 22:57:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Payback for what?
Defamation.
What defamation?
Saying he raped someone when he didn't.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-19 00:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Payback for what?
Defamation.
What defamation?
Saying he raped someone when he didn't.
That's the ABC case which has no relevance to this case.
Skeeter
2024-12-19 12:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was
falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Payback for what?
Defamation.
What defamation?
Saying he raped someone when he didn't.
That's the ABC case which has no relevance to this case.
Huh? ABC defamed him and lost.
AlleyCat
2024-12-18 18:06:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 07:55:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Skeeter
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.
It's called payback.
Payback for what?
Do you live UNDER your mommy's basement?

=====

The judge hasn't entered the JUDGMENT OF GUILT yet, so no... CERTAINLY not a "convicted felon".

Rubenfeld emphasized that Trump is not yet a convicted felon because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT.

See? Pansy-ass little child thinks he's smarter than a REAL lawyer.

Has the JUDGE entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT? HAS he, Juan Merchan, approved the verdict and enter a final judgment?

Nope and nope, so no... Trump is still NOT A CONVICTED FELON. Doesn't REALLY matter though... does it? (see below)

You should simply have read this article which explains it... even in New York:

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS NOT ENTERED A JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained THAT IN NEW YORK,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

You lose again, loser.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

=============================================================================

Why TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT After His Conviction - NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-still-run-president-guilty-verdict-conviction-rcna154801

May 30, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president after his hush money conviction? The former president was convicted on 34 felony counts of
falsifying business records and will be sentenced on July 11.


=====

Can Trump Still Run For President? Can He Still Vote? - CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/can-trump-still-run-for-president-what-matters/index.html

May 30, 2024 - Now that a New York jury has convicted former President Donald Trump of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, the next
obvious question is: Can a convicted felon run for president?

The US Constitution lays out just three requirements for presidential candidates. They must:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

Trump Is Now A Convicted Felon: Can He Still Run For President? - USA TODAY -

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/30/donald-trump-convicted-felony-president/73904298007/

May 30, 20241:09. Donald Trump is the first former president convicted of a crime in U.S. history, BUT IT WON'T STOP HIM FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
AGAIN. His conviction on Thursday does not bar him from ...

=====

Trump Guilty Plea: Can He Still Run For President? Questions Answered

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/2024/05/31/donald-trump-guilty-what-happens-now-7-major-questions-answered-jail-president-vote-cohen-
daniels/73920427007/

May 31, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president in 2024? Yes. The U.S. Constitution does not bar anyone from running for president after they become
a felon. The only qualifications are the following:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

YES, INDICTED TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT, But Winning Is A ...

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1164822171/trump-run-president-campaign-arrest-charges-voters-indictment

Mar 22, 2023 - Yes, Trump can run for president. Fortunately for Trump, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting candidates with criminal
records from holding office. In fact, an individual only has to be ...

=====

What Happens After Trump Is Convicted In NY Trial? | TIME

https://time.com/6980638/what-happens-if-donald-trump-convicted/

May 21, 2024 - CAN TRUMP STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT? YES. A felony conviction will not disqualify Trump from continuing his presidential campaign, even
if he were jailed.

=====

Could Trump Become President After Being Convicted Of A Crime? - Los ...

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-04-15/trump-trial-president-constitution-conviction

Apr 15, 2024 - Published April 15, 2024 Updated May 30, 2024 3:04 PM PT. WASHINGTON -. Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted
of felony crimes. A New York jury on Wednesday found him ...

COULD TRUMP BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME?

YES.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAW THAT PREVENTS A FELON FROM HOLDING THE NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICE.
Siri Cruise
2024-12-18 01:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying
polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote,
because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll
was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump
THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Chant 'discovery'! That always shut the fat fuck up.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
NoBody
2024-12-18 12:21:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:28:33 -0800, Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying
polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote,
because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump
THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Chant 'discovery'! That always shut the fat fuck up.
Well discovery put an end to the ABC lawsuit so there's that.
NoBody
2024-12-18 12:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:46:57 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
What were the actual results?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Then why are you here???
pothead
2024-12-19 18:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:46:57 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.
3%-points.
What were the actual results?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".
Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.
Then why are you here???
The funiest part is that after the election the Harris team admitted that their internal polling had never
shown Harris ahead and in fact in most places she was losing badly.

This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.
--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:

Example of Snit trolling in real time:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ>

All about the snit troll:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-19 19:19:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pothead
This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.
How accurate do you think polls have been in the past?
pothead
2024-12-20 00:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by pothead
This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.
How accurate do you think polls have been in the past?
Pretty much the same level of inaccuracy however we did not have the Internet and social
media spewing the results within seconds to the entire world.
That's the difference.
--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:

Example of Snit trolling in real time:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ>

All about the snit troll:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-20 01:10:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by pothead
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by pothead
This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.
How accurate do you think polls have been in the past?
Pretty much the same level of inaccuracy however we did not have the Internet and social
media spewing the results within seconds to the entire world.
That's the difference.
You are correct not much has changed. But the polls are useful in
estimating the odds of a candidate winning thanks to poll aggregators
like Nate Silver who came into prominence on the Internet.
NoBody
2024-12-18 12:15:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

We'll wait while you duck and dodge and ultimately not answer the
question.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-18 16:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
NoBody
2024-12-19 12:15:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".

You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.

What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?

Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-19 16:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.

The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.

There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).

(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.

In the end, it was a bad decision, but a perfectly honest and reasonable
one.
NoBody
2024-12-20 12:26:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.
There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided. That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).
Which says nothing to the point.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.
And yet she failed big time here and didn't find the "problem" until
now?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
In the end, it was a bad decision, but a perfectly honest and reasonable
one.
Laughter.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-20 16:13:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.
There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided.
She took a deep dive here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/

Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.
Post by NoBody
That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?
She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).
Which says nothing to the point.
It's exactly on point as to whether she honestly felt her non-recall
weighted numbers were correct.
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.
And yet she failed big time here and didn't find the "problem" until
now?
Again, she can't know there is a problem until after the election.
NoBody
2024-12-21 14:56:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:13:11 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.
There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/
Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.
Any pollster who doesn't think the public remembers what party they
last voted for is laughable. This is her theory????
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?
She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.
Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).
Which says nothing to the point.
It's exactly on point as to whether she honestly felt her non-recall
weighted numbers were correct.
She was wrong apparently and how did sirens not go off in her head
when her results were so far out of everyone else's? Wouldn't a
responsible pollster ask these questions before publishing?

As for her theory, it's laughable.

Oh and it's her fourth excuse listed.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.
And yet she failed big time here and didn't find the "problem" until
now?
Again, she can't know there is a problem until after the election.
Wrong. If you see that you're an "outlyer" it behooves you to verify
your work. She destroyed her career by resting on her laurels of her
reputation and ignored clear signs that the poll was wrong.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-21 16:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:13:11 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.
There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/
Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.
Any pollster who doesn't think the public remembers what party they
last voted for is laughable. This is her theory????
Yes. Nate Cohen of the NY Times had an excellent article detailing the
good and bad of recall weighting, and how there remains no consensus on
whether to use it. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/upshot/polling-methods-election.html
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?
She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.
Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.
The same thing happened in 2016 and 2020 when she had Trump far ahead of
what all the other pollsters had. She did not reexamine then (and stood
alone in being right), and did not do so now (and stood alone in being
wrong).

But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.
Siri Cruise
2024-12-21 23:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Wrong. If you see that you're an "outlyer" it behooves you to verify
No, it does not. Fox got hit because they were acting with malice
knowing they were wrong and ignoring warnings. Rush Limbaugh's
clown clone got hit for the same reasons.
Post by NoBody
your work. She destroyed her career by resting on her laurels of her
reputation and ignored clear signs that the poll was wrong.
That is up to the editors and readers, not you.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Siri Cruise
2024-12-19 22:55:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.
What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?
Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.
Where is 'election interference' a tort in Illinois law or US Code?
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-20 01:09:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls
is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because
your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.
  What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?
Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.
Where is 'election interference' a tort in Illinois law or US Code?
Trump sued under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. The claimed damages are
"he need[ed] to expend extensive time and resources, including direct
federal campaign expenditures, to mitigate and counteract the harms of
the Defendants' conduct."

Because the law limits damages to natural persons, even assuming Trump
can make his case (he can't), he would then have to show what time and
money he personally spent as a result of the poll (his campaign is not a
natural person). I'm not sure he can even show any expenditures his
campaign made in response to the poll.

Yet another reason why this lawsuit is garbage.
pothead
2024-12-20 01:15:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls
is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because
your candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes
So the answer is "no".
You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.
  What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?
Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.
Where is 'election interference' a tort in Illinois law or US Code?
Trump sued under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. The claimed damages are
"he need[ed] to expend extensive time and resources, including direct
federal campaign expenditures, to mitigate and counteract the harms of
the Defendants' conduct."
Because the law limits damages to natural persons, even assuming Trump
can make his case (he can't), he would then have to show what time and
money he personally spent as a result of the poll (his campaign is not a
natural person). I'm not sure he can even show any expenditures his
campaign made in response to the poll.
Yet another reason why this lawsuit is garbage.
That lawsuit will go nowhere.
--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:

Example of Snit trolling in real time:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ>

All about the snit troll:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>
AlleyCat
2024-12-18 18:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 07:15:56 -0500, NoBody says...
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?
She "selected" a certain demographic and they probably 86'd any kind of evidence of it.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-18 16:33:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/
AlleyCat
2024-12-18 18:06:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
Yeah, like mailing people to vote on different dates or in different places or not at all because their candidate is either too far ahead to lose or
too far behind to win, huh?

That's protected, huh?

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-18 21:49:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
Yeah, like mailing people to vote on different dates or in different places or not at all because their candidate is either too far ahead to lose or
too far behind to win, huh?
That's protected, huh?
Nope, as Volokh explained in another post () he linked to in the one I
cited
(https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/08/vp-candidate-tim-walz-on-theres-no-guarantee-to-free-speech-on-misinformation-or-hate-speech-and-especially-around-our-democracy/)
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/).
NoBody
2024-12-19 12:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/
Of course you didn't consider that.

<eyeroll>

Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-19 16:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/
Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.
Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.

(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.
NoBody
2024-12-20 12:22:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/
Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.
Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.
And if she knew they were a lie?
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.
Laughter. I'm sure. Wouldn't a responsible pollster go back and
examine what went wrong and publish those results? She quit instead.
That says plenty.
Josh Rosenbluth
2024-12-20 16:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/
Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.
Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.
And if she knew they were a lie?
She is not protected by the First Amendment.
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.
Laughter. I'm sure. Wouldn't a responsible pollster go back and
examine what went wrong and publish those results?
She did as I detailed in my other reply.
NoBody
2024-12-21 14:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:11:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.
Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/
Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.
Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.
And if she knew they were a lie?
She is not protected by the First Amendment.
Hence the lawsuit. We'll see what happens.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by NoBody
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.
Laughter. I'm sure. Wouldn't a responsible pollster go back and
examine what went wrong and publish those results?
She did as I detailed in my other reply.
Appreciate your digging. Naturally the media did a great job of not
reporting this.
Loading...