3 ms·

>with Calin Georgescu coming out of nowhere to win the first round, with classical polling showing him below 5%. Harris +3 in IOWA was not an oopsie accident.

>with Calin Georgescu coming out of nowhere to win the first round, with classical polling showing him below 5%. Harris +3 in IOWA was not an oopsie accident. Now you get to learn that your media runs your polls and they’ll say whatever they need to, too.

TMWNN 2y ago
You mean Harris +3 in Iowa. But yes, I agree that a 17-point miss by "the gold standard of Iowa polling" is almost inexplicable unless it was done as a last-minute act to persuade marginal voters to vote for Harris. (Selzer herself says that she thinks the poll's result motivated Trump voters, the preposterousness of which is all the more indication that she intentionally skewed the result.)
- permo-w 2y ago
  am I understanding correctly that you're suggesting that an Iowa poll was artificially made to favour Harris in order to get more people to vote for her?
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    Yes. People naturally like to vote for winners, and those who look like winners. There was *massive* news coverage of the Selzer poll's surprising result, with accompanying breathless commentary discussing how this was proof that hordes of Republican women were indeed secretly[1] voting for Kamala. Cue the tens of thousands of Redditards' comments on how Harris would surely win not just Iowa but Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc. Governor Pritzker of Illinois told an audience at Duke of the poll before its release. In other words, it was leaked to those who would be pleased by the findings. <https://www.semafor.com/article/11/10/2024/gannett-probes-possible-leak-of-bombshell-iowa-poll https://www.semafor.com/article/11/10/2024/gannett-probes-po...> [1] For example, the Julia Roberts-starring TV ad <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk> showing how women could and should secretly vote for Harris and not tell their horrible husbands. (Beware; the cringe level is so overwhelming that if your brain doesn't shut down in self-defense your computer might explode. There is a reason why the ad is not linked directly anywhere on Reddit except a handful of posts with a half dozen comments. If Redditors saw it as truly "stunning" and "brave", it would have been reposted 100 times, each time with 20K upvotes and 3.5K comments.)
    - permo-w 2y ago
      do you have a source saying that voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who polls higher?
  - bhk 2y ago
    ... and to keep donations coming in. It helped cultivate a sense of hope when they needed it.
cbg0 2y ago
We're not talking about an established candidate with pre-existing support, and this was just the first leg of the election with multiple presidential candidates, not the run-off, so don't compare this to Trump v Kamala. I'm also not talking about a single poll, or ones run by just the left/right, he wasn't polling well anywhere.
- NVHacker 2y ago
  I don't have knowledge about the polls but someone made a good point elesewhere. His share of the vote might have increased after the Constitutional Court banned another (far right) candidate because they didn't like her discourse (crazy, right?) https://tvpworld.com/82727489/romanian-pm-suggests-constitutional-court-reform-as-far-right-candidate-expelled-from-presidential-race https://tvpworld.com/82727489/romanian-pm-suggests-constitut... Rather ironic that the PM criticized that decision while praising the court for this latest intrusion.
oblio 2y ago
This is different. He was basically unknown, last visible in politics in 1996 or so. He isn't a member of any big party and by that I don't mean just the mainstream ones, but like, the top 10 parties in the country. He's a nobody.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Like that, your defense of bad polling is that only the people who control the polls should have a say in who is elected. “He’s a nobody!” means “He isn’t supported by our media and elites and corporations” Have you ever considered that is the reason he did well?

TMWNN 2y ago

You mean Harris +3 in Iowa. But yes, I agree that a 17-point miss by "the gold standard of Iowa polling" is almost inexplicable unless it was done as a last-minute act to persuade marginal voters to vote for Harris. (Selzer herself says that she thinks the poll's result motivated Trump voters, the preposterousness of which is all the more indication that she intentionally skewed the result.)

permo-w 2y ago
am I understanding correctly that you're suggesting that an Iowa poll was artificially made to favour Harris in order to get more people to vote for her?
- TMWNN 2y ago
  Yes. People naturally like to vote for winners, and those who look like winners. There was *massive* news coverage of the Selzer poll's surprising result, with accompanying breathless commentary discussing how this was proof that hordes of Republican women were indeed secretly[1] voting for Kamala. Cue the tens of thousands of Redditards' comments on how Harris would surely win not just Iowa but Texas, Florida, Ohio, etc. Governor Pritzker of Illinois told an audience at Duke of the poll before its release. In other words, it was leaked to those who would be pleased by the findings. <https://www.semafor.com/article/11/10/2024/gannett-probes-possible-leak-of-bombshell-iowa-poll https://www.semafor.com/article/11/10/2024/gannett-probes-po...> [1] For example, the Julia Roberts-starring TV ad <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaCPck2qDhk> showing how women could and should secretly vote for Harris and not tell their horrible husbands. (Beware; the cringe level is so overwhelming that if your brain doesn't shut down in self-defense your computer might explode. There is a reason why the ad is not linked directly anywhere on Reddit except a handful of posts with a half dozen comments. If Redditors saw it as truly "stunning" and "brave", it would have been reposted 100 times, each time with 20K upvotes and 3.5K comments.)
  - permo-w 2y ago
    do you have a source saying that voters are more likely to vote for a candidate who polls higher?
- bhk 2y ago
  ... and to keep donations coming in. It helped cultivate a sense of hope when they needed it.

cbg0 2y ago

We're not talking about an established candidate with pre-existing support, and this was just the first leg of the election with multiple presidential candidates, not the run-off, so don't compare this to Trump v Kamala. I'm also not talking about a single poll, or ones run by just the left/right, he wasn't polling well anywhere.

NVHacker 2y ago
I don't have knowledge about the polls but someone made a good point elesewhere. His share of the vote might have increased after the Constitutional Court banned another (far right) candidate because they didn't like her discourse (crazy, right?) https://tvpworld.com/82727489/romanian-pm-suggests-constitutional-court-reform-as-far-right-candidate-expelled-from-presidential-race https://tvpworld.com/82727489/romanian-pm-suggests-constitut... Rather ironic that the PM criticized that decision while praising the court for this latest intrusion.

oblio 2y ago

This is different. He was basically unknown, last visible in politics in 1996 or so. He isn't a member of any big party and by that I don't mean just the mainstream ones, but like, the top 10 parties in the country. He's a nobody.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Like that, your defense of bad polling is that only the people who control the polls should have a say in who is elected. “He’s a nobody!” means “He isn’t supported by our media and elites and corporations” Have you ever considered that is the reason he did well?