#Ann Selzer

[liberalsarecool]

Boomer women need to see a lady president in their lifetime. 💙🗽🌊

They were fighting for these rights the first time.

[fantastic-nonsense]

Ann Selzer releasing her Iowa presidential poll tonight

[dynamicity-keysmash]

Ann Selzer, the undisputable Queen of polling, has seen fit to grace us with an Iowa poll that, even if it were off by Selzer's all-time worst polling error (7 points), would spell genuine doom for Trump's chances in the midwest and, as follows, the election.

If there is any truth whatsoever to her poll, which is the absolute best in the game, Harris will be president-elect in a few days. It's not a guarantee, but it's a good omen if there ever was one. If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd guess that Harris wins a convincing, of close, victory. I bet she'll get like 5/7 swing states, probably missing AZ and NC. This is just my wildest shot in the dark, and will probably be extremely incorrect.

Also, for the hell of it, I think Dems will win the house and end up with a 51R-49D Senate.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Emily Singer at Daily Kos:

Donald Trump demanded on Sunday that pollster Ann Selzer be investigated for releasing a preelection poll of Iowa that showed him losing to Vice President Kamala Harris.  “A totally Fake poll that caused great distrust and uncertainty at a very critical time. She knew exactly what she was doing,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. “Thank you to the GREAT PEOPLE OF IOWA for giving me such a record breaking vote, despite possible ELECTION FRAUD by Ann Selzer and the now discredited ‘newspaper’ for which she works. An investigation is fully called for!” Trump attacked Selzer after the longtime pollster announced that she is retiring from conducting election polling. 

“Over a year ago I advised the [Des Moines] Register I would not renew when my 2024 contract expired with the latest election poll as I transition to other ventures and opportunities,” she wrote in a column in the newspaper, whose polling she conducted for decades. “Would I have liked to make this announcement after a final poll aligned with Election Day results? Of course. It’s ironic that it’s just the opposite. I am proud of the work I’ve done for the Register, for the Detroit Free Press, for the Indianapolis Star, for Bloomberg News and for other public and private organizations interested in elections. They were great clients and were happy with my work.”

Seltzer’s final Iowa poll was way off the mark. It showed Harris leading Trump by 3 percentage points, but Trump went on to win the state by 13 points. However, releasing a poll that turned out to be incorrect is not illegal. And subjecting pollsters to ridiculous investigations if their polls were incorrect would have a chilling effect on the industry because pollsters wouldn’t want to risk their financial security or freedom and would either not release their surveys or shut down altogether.

On Oct. 31, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against CBS News, falsely alleging that the “60 Minutes” interview the network aired with Harris was doctored and amounted to a “deceitful, deceptive manipulation of news."

[...] MSNBC is preemptively kissing Trump’s ring ahead of his inauguration in January. The co-hosts of the network’s “Morning Joe” program, who have been loudly critical of Trump since he incited an insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, went to Mar-a-Lago to clear the air with Trump before he takes office. "Joe and I realize it's time to do something different," Mika Brzezinski said on air Monday morning. "And that starts with not only talking about Donald Trump but also talking with him." What “Morning Joe” just did is a perfect example of Yale University history professor Timothy Snyder describes in his book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century” as “obeying in advance.” “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,” Snyder wrote in his book. “In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

Unhinged demagogue Donald Trump posted on Truth Social yesterday demanding that retiring pollster Ann Selzer be investigated for releasing a poll that had Kamala Harris up 3 in Iowa right before the election.

Selzer announced her retirement from the Des Moines Register, which was in the works for a year.

[mylionheart2]

Pete Buttigieg: "It's only one poll, you don't want to get carried away."

Me:

[redistrictgirl]

Holy Sh*t

Harris +3 in Iowa.

At least, that's the headline you've seen or are about to see. But the truth is a little more complicated than that. Let's break down why this poll is so earth-shattering and why it (still!) doesn't mean a Blunami.

Ann Selzer is the single most trusted name in polling. She correctly called out the media narrative three presidential elections in a row just by releasing simply-weighted polls a few days before Election Day. She correctly indicated a late Obama lead in 2012 and clear Trump leads in 2016 and 2020 in the Hawkeye State despite consensus to the contrary. So to indicate an eleven-point margin swing from President Biden's election, this must mean that the Vice President will win the popular vote by double digits, right? Not so fast. Let's look at the vote shares and see some much more believable outcomes based on it - all without Ms. Selzer being technically wrong.

The most noticeable number is that, despite a comfortable lead in this poll, Ms. Harris is still only shown having won over 47% of voters. That's because there are a whopping 9% undecided, over double the average national poll. Simple political gravity would tell us that Mr. Trump is an overwhelming favorite to win the vast majority of them. Let's assume he gains 6% from his current 44%, and to be fair, Harris gains an additional 1%. That would mean that the former President won a net 71% of late deciders, which seems like a lot, but that's actually a smaller undecided split than average at the state level. For those of you keeping track at home, that would be a 50-48 win for Mr. Trump.

I'm still a little skeptical of this outcome, but it's much more believable in the event of a 2018-level environment combined with a particularly strong trend to the left in the Midwest. That's still terrible for the GOP. That would also be a terrible year for polling in general, as my polling average suggests that the billionaire has clinched 47% of the popular vote already, but it's certainly not unprecedented on either side:

The industry just had a genuine miss in 2020 - you know it, I know it, the intern at CNN knows it.

A big break in Iowa undecideds giving us a different winner from the leader in the marquee Iowa poll actually happened in 2018 during the gubernatorial race.

Of course, no one is invincible - we could still be headed for a much closer race than even the most realist look at Ms. Selzer's poll, and she could finally fall as a bellwether much like Gallup in 2012 or FiveThirtyEight in 2016. After all, one poll is one poll, and no single data point is infallible. But right now, Democrats should be very, VERY heartened by this poll, no matter how you look at it.

[mysandwichgiver]

👀😻🤞

[uselessandgay]

Ann Selzer found bald

[cherryblossomshadow]

North Carolina—and Iowa?

by Mary L. Trump

Excerpts:

On Saturday night, Ann Selzer, a pollster with a stellar reputation who specializes in the state [of Iowa], released a poll that has Kamala Harris up by 3 points.

Here is the history of Selzer’s polls since 2012. The actual election results are in parentheses:

2022 Senate: R+12 (R+12)

2020 President: R+7 (R+8)

2020 Senate: R+4 (R+7)

2018 Governor: D+2 (R+3)

2016 President: R+7 (R+9)

2014 Senate: R+7 (R+8)

2012 President: D+5 (D+6)

The result shocked the political world. It also reminded us that the Supreme Court’s Dobb’s decision continues to have serious electoral consequences for the party that is determined to turn women into second-class citizens.

Iowa has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Beyond that, the state has been losing OB-GYNs since before Roe v Wade was overturned. And, in the wake of the decision, it’s been losing medical providers of all specialties.

.

In response to Selzer’s poll, Nate Silver, another pollster, that it was “incredibly gutsy to release this poll.”

Cohn recently admitted that “it is much safer, whether in terms of literal self-interest or purely psychologically, to find a close race than to gamble on a clear Harris victory.”

“When their results come in very blue, they don’t believe it,” Cohn wrote. “And frankly, I share that feeling: If our final Pennsylvania poll comes in at Harris +7, why would I believe it? As a result, pollsters are more willing to take steps to produce more Republican-leaning results.”

These comments are staggering:

Cohn and Silver see a close race because they want to see a close race.

This morning, The New York Times ceded the most valuable real estate on its front page to Nate Cohn, and ran his piece with this headline:

“Some Surprises in Last Battleground Polls, but Still a Deadlock”

And so it goes.

[josephbrassey]

This joke is at the exact intersection of political and geek humor that hits my sweet spot.

[rthstewart]

Latest Poll Drop in Iowa

I mean WTF. Obama did carry Iowa in 2012 but it's been solidly Trump Country the last 2 elections. The pollster, Ann Selzer, is considered one of the best most reputable pollsters out there -- Rasmussen this is not. Polls can be wrong. I'm going to now forget I ever saw this and get back to the final push assuming we're still 2 points down.

Now of course it's clear that the Republicans and the Trump campaign intend to move to legal challenges, sow chaos, and flood news and social media with lies, with Trump intending to declare victory on Tuesday. But that's going to be hard to do if he can't carry Iowa, or North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.

So, get out, vote, and maybe, just maybe, we'll never have to hear about him and JD Vance ever again.

pic is of a blue ocean wave crashing against a shore

[trendynewsnow]

Kamala Harris Leads in Iowa Poll Amid Women's Political Mobilization

A Surprising Poll Result: Kamala Harris Leads in Iowa On a Saturday evening, while enjoying a movie night with my family, I received a text message that made me gasp audibly, startling those around me. My husband, clearly concerned, asked, “What happened?” I reassured him, “It’s nothing bad; it’s just… Ann Selzer has Harris up three in Iowa!” Throughout the day, political enthusiasts had been…

[lordgolden]

4 year destiel anniversary might give us Blexas… I want to believe

[dynamicity-keysmash]

For funsies, I'm gonna formally make an election prediction and see if it's right in a few days.

The Presidency

I predict Harris 286 vs Trump 252 in the electoral college. She'll win Wl, MI, PA, NV, and GA while losing NC and AZ.

I think that Harris's increased strength with college educated whites and white women will deliver WI, MI, and PA. The Harry Reid political machine's insane turnout game will deliver NV. I think that a combination of enthusiasm, and the increased college-educated, suburban population will deliver Georgia. I think waning strength with minority men and the sheer inertia of historical Republican support will lose AZ and NC for Harris.

I predict that the popular vote will be 50-47 in favor of Harris (+2.5D).

The Senate

I think that the Senate will end up with a one seat Republican majority (51R-49D). I think that Dems will hold every seat except WV and MT and win all of the swing state Senate races. So Tester will lose and Brown will win. I don't think that Dems will flip any Republican seats, nor will Osborn win in Nebraska.

The House

I predict that Dems will win the house narrowly with a 5-10 seat majority. I think that most of the gains will come from recovering ground in NY and CA while holding onto some razor-thin swing districts they won in 2022.

[memorizingthedigitsofpi]

I would like to thank tumblr polls, as a whole, for showing me so very clearly that even the most straightforward question has nuance and that people will answer wildly differently from their true opinion either accidentally or for the lolz or because they weren't thinking when they chose the option they did, or even because they don't really know but want to join in.

It may be a weird coping mechanism, but imagining all of the political polls in the US right now as "no nuance, no vanilla extract" is actually helping me pay less rabid attention to them. Like, how accurate can the results really be if they can't even see the tags for clarification, y'know?

[wellpresseddaisy]

Last Selzer poll out of Iowa dropped and it's +3 Harris. I repeat +3 Harris. It was +4 Trump in September, for reference.

For anyone wondering why I'm internally shrieking in joy over a poll out of Iowa, Ann Selzer is one of the most accurate pollsters and her Iowa poll really takes the temperature of the Midwestern electorate.

It's just...holy pete.