#ann selzer

[liberalsarecool]

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

They were fighting for these rights the first time.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trump's lawsuit against Ann Selzer is textbook authoritarianism

In a sane country it'd be comical. But ...

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

Reading the complaint in Donald Trump’s lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer over her 2024 poll that found Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa, it’s hard not to give in to thoughts of how comically obscene it is. The suit stretches the interpretation of the relevant law — Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act — well past the breaking point. It leans heavily on “facts” that are nothing but Trump quoting Trump about being mad. It spends a good deal of time citing hard-right outlets like Breitbart as if they are neutral. It’s hard not to laugh at how absurd it is. But then you remember that ABC just gave Trump a total of $16 million rather than fight the paper-thin defamation lawsuit he brought against them. And that even after ABC knuckled under, Trump still has lawsuits against CBS, Simon & Schuster, and CNN. And then you also remember that Trump has stated he’s going to use all his might — and that of the government — to bury media he doesn’t like. All of this makes trying to rationally assess whether the lawsuit will succeed nearly impossible.

Trump can afford to go scorched earth whether his claims have any merit or not. He has bottomless wealth, particularly regarding legal fees, as he’s made his donors cover at least $100 million of them so far. He’s utterly unconcerned about whether something is true, and he seems to have a never-ending stream of lawyers willing to step up even though several have ended up facing sanctions, criminal charges, or both. Put simply, he has no incentive to back down, ever. All that being said, the lawsuit against Selzer is still straight-up trash, even if it’s trash that somehow manages to succeed because of the unique blend of horrible characteristics exclusive to Trump.

The nonsense is the point

Trump is alleging that Selzer, her Selzer & Company polling company, the Des Moines Register (the paper that published the poll), and the Register’s parent company — media behemoth Gannett — broke Iowa’s consumer fraud statute. To demonstrate this, Trump would have to prove actual fraud — as in that Selzer, the paper, and the publisher knew or should have known that the poll was fraudulent and that they intended people would rely on that fraud. But Trump doesn’t argue anything like that. What he does instead are include random quotes slamming Harris from places like Breitbart and a list of other times Selzer got poll predictions wrong.

[...]

Bullying the press into submission

So what happens now? Regrettably, the answer isn’t necessarily the same for all the defendants here. Gannett has already removed lawsuit from the Iowa state courts to the federal courts. There’s nothing particularly odd about that as such — cases can be shifted to federal court when the parties are in different jurisdictions and the damages claimed exceed $75,000. However, this also puts any loss Gannett would suffer in federal district court in Iowa as getting appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where only one of the 11 current judges was nominated by a Democrat, and then on up to the exceedingly Trump-friendly US Supreme Court. To be fair, it isn’t clear that Iowa state courts would handle this case well either, and it may be that Gannett thinks that the federal courts, which deal with media lawsuits more often, are a better bet. But the one thing that is clear is that Gannett is also only looking out for Gannett. The notice of removal filed by the company is only on their behalf. The other defendants get dragged along, but Gannett is not, at least as of yet, providing a defense on behalf of Selzer, her company, or the Register. The party with the shallowest pockets and the least ability to withstand the juggernaut of endless Trump litigation is Selzer, which makes it hard for her to be the face of taking a hard line against Trump’s war on the media.

Donald Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against Ann Selzer and the Des Moines Register is a gross attack on the freedom of the press.

[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.

[mylionheart2]

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

Me:

[follow-up-news]

Trump files suit against Iowa pollster Ann Selzer and Des Moines Register newspaper

Selzer published a poll days before the election that said Kamala Harris was ahead by 3 percentage points. Trump ultimately won the state by

Donald Trump is suing Ann Selzer, her polling firm, The Des Moines Register and the newspaper's parent company, Gannett, accusing them of consumer fraud, according to a copy of the filing reviewed by NBC News. The suit, filed Monday night in Polk County, Iowa, says it seeks “accountability for brazen election interference” over a Nov. 2 poll that showed Kamala Harris up 3 percentage points in Iowa. Trump ultimately won the state by double digits, a difference that his lawyers argue in the suit constitutes “election-interfering fiction.” The president-elect is making the claim under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits deceptive advertising. "I’m doing this because I feel I have an obligation to. I’m going to be bringing one against the people in Iowa, their newspaper, which had a very, very good pollster who got me right all the time, and then just before the election, she said I was going to lose by 3 or 4 points," Trump said in discussing the suit on Monday. Selzer announced after the election that she would stop polling political contests and move into other ventures.

[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]

👀😻🤞