Selzer "reviewing the data" after missing Iowa by 16 points
| teabaggervance | 11/06/24 | | cowstack | 11/06/24 | | ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;.., | 11/06/24 | | :;:;;;:;:;;;:;:;:;:; | 11/06/24 | | UN peacekeeper | 11/06/24 | | richard clock | 11/06/24 | | Donald MASE Trump | 11/06/24 | | ceci n'est pas un avocat | 11/06/24 | | Charles Tyrwhitt Dad | 11/06/24 | | richard clock | 11/06/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
|
Date: November 6th, 2024 10:19 AM
Author: ...,,..;...,,..,..,...,,,;..,
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5628261&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969",#48298679) |
Date: November 6th, 2024 10:22 AM Author: Charles Tyrwhitt Dad
I'm giving her a break. She correctly called Iowa for Trump in 2016 and 2020 and in 2020 she correctly called the 8-9% margin of victory for Trump when all other polls showed a neck to neck race. She wasn't coming into this season with a history of anti-Trump polling.
Her model genuinely failed her this time. And in a staggering way given that Trump expanded his margin of victory in Iowa from 2020. It's probably a combination of the MOE tilting to one extreme end and a growing deliberate refusal by GOP-leaning voters to respond to polls.
Her mistake was not to immediately say there's something wrong with the model's outcome this time. Iowa got redder in 2022 from 2020 and that alone should have told her the model was off. Any state that went redder from 2020 to 2022 was not going to suddenly revert course and vote for Harris.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5628261&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=3986969",#48298702) |
|
|