- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

The Selzer Poll and the case for a Trump loss
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:53 pm
My biggest takeaways from Selzer’s interview with Halperin today:
1. Her polling style is “old school” and expensive. She has real people make the calls.
2. She doesn’t try to anchor her results to past elections, e.g. if Republicans made up 60% of the vote last election she isn’t trying make the results of her poll reflect a same or similar vote share. She simply asks respondents did you already vote or definitely plan to vote and lets those respondents speak for themselves with, according to her, minimal weighting. The way she describes it is she is trying to “look forward” not back.
Reading up on her past results a little - guess who the polling outlier was in Iowa in 2020 but got it the most right? Selzer (DM Register):
Lastly, she mentioned Indiana 2008 as an example of when a state had a big swing from one election to the next. GWB won Indiana in 2004 by 20%. In 2008, the RCP average had McCain +1.4 and Selzer’s final 2008 Indiana poll had Obama +1. Obama won by 1%. Point is, states can and do swing big from one election to the next.
So what do I take from the Selzer Iowa poll? It’s just one data point and should be taken with a big grain of salt. But what it may be shedding light on is that there may be a significant slice of the electorate that would otherwise be voting R but will not be voting R for whatever reason. You have the Trump polarization effect, the fallout of Roe, the stupid MSG thing swaying a few normie sheep, a few Haley Republicans not coming home, a few people still in their feelings about Jan 6th… All these things by themselves would likely not be enough to tip an election, but cumulatively could they?
When Trump beat Hillary, he had a lot going for him. Comey, the release of all those emails, the fact we just had two D terms, Hillary being super entitled and unlikeable… yet he barely beat her. The margin for error was always going to be thin.
My prediction at this moment is Trump still wins with a narrow victory in PA, but I don’t like what that Selzer poll MAY be trying to tell us.
1. Her polling style is “old school” and expensive. She has real people make the calls.
2. She doesn’t try to anchor her results to past elections, e.g. if Republicans made up 60% of the vote last election she isn’t trying make the results of her poll reflect a same or similar vote share. She simply asks respondents did you already vote or definitely plan to vote and lets those respondents speak for themselves with, according to her, minimal weighting. The way she describes it is she is trying to “look forward” not back.
Reading up on her past results a little - guess who the polling outlier was in Iowa in 2020 but got it the most right? Selzer (DM Register):
Lastly, she mentioned Indiana 2008 as an example of when a state had a big swing from one election to the next. GWB won Indiana in 2004 by 20%. In 2008, the RCP average had McCain +1.4 and Selzer’s final 2008 Indiana poll had Obama +1. Obama won by 1%. Point is, states can and do swing big from one election to the next.
So what do I take from the Selzer Iowa poll? It’s just one data point and should be taken with a big grain of salt. But what it may be shedding light on is that there may be a significant slice of the electorate that would otherwise be voting R but will not be voting R for whatever reason. You have the Trump polarization effect, the fallout of Roe, the stupid MSG thing swaying a few normie sheep, a few Haley Republicans not coming home, a few people still in their feelings about Jan 6th… All these things by themselves would likely not be enough to tip an election, but cumulatively could they?
When Trump beat Hillary, he had a lot going for him. Comey, the release of all those emails, the fact we just had two D terms, Hillary being super entitled and unlikeable… yet he barely beat her. The margin for error was always going to be thin.
My prediction at this moment is Trump still wins with a narrow victory in PA, but I don’t like what that Selzer poll MAY be trying to tell us.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:55 pm to Jon Ham
Idk who wins but trump is winning Iowa by 10+
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:56 pm to Jon Ham
Early voting data showing favorable Republican swings:
Iowa +12
NH +24.3
NV +7.3
RI +23.4
NC +6.9
AZ +8.8
PA +17
Iowa +12
NH +24.3
NV +7.3
RI +23.4
NC +6.9
AZ +8.8
PA +17
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:57 pm to Jon Ham
But that method is flawed is a portion of the respondents refuses to do polls.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:58 pm to Jon Ham
If killing unborn children is the number 1 voting issue for a society, and the American people will elect socialists to protect that right, conservative men need to find somewhere else to live, because there's no saving this country through the ballot box.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:59 pm to Jon Ham
Jesus Christ why is this anchored?
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:59 pm to Jon Ham
The Selzer Poll is a Red Herring devoid of any logic. Bought and paid for by Democrats to sew doubt, provide the MSM with disingenuous talking points, and to skew polling averages across the spectrum
Posted on 11/3/24 at 4:59 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
But what it may be shedding light on is that there may be a significant slice of the electorate that would otherwise be voting R but will not be voting R for whatever reason.
Yeah, sure. Trump won in 2016, won by a wider margin in 2020, and every single county (all 99 of them) have shifted further right in voter registration since then, but now there’s a Trump polarization effect.
Lmaaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
This post was edited on 11/3/24 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:00 pm to Jon Ham
From her own mouth in the interview, she basically ignores anything and assumes voters will be honest with her and that she has a good representative sample.
Her process, for this polling at least, was described as utterly useless. She may have historically been good at this, but I assure you that she changed her approach for this last poll and did so with an agenda. She even said so that she thought her result could galvanize voter turnout.
In the end, she can have been legit before and now become a fraud with an agenda.
According to you, she believes the past should not be used to predict the future. I choose to believe her past success/accuracy should not mean her current poll about the future is worth a shite.
Her process, for this polling at least, was described as utterly useless. She may have historically been good at this, but I assure you that she changed her approach for this last poll and did so with an agenda. She even said so that she thought her result could galvanize voter turnout.
In the end, she can have been legit before and now become a fraud with an agenda.
According to you, she believes the past should not be used to predict the future. I choose to believe her past success/accuracy should not mean her current poll about the future is worth a shite.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:00 pm to Jon Ham
The early vote data shows a 12 point swing to Republicans in Iowa. Also Republicans have increased Registration advantage +130k since 2020. Emerson Iowa poll was +10.5 for Trump. Selzer sample, 50% said the number 1 issue was Democracy, that in itself tells you her sample had way to many liberal Democrats. Trump wins Iowa by 8-10 points
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:02 pm to Jon Ham
quote:
Jesus Christ why is this anchored?
Because the Selzer poll has already been debunked. Have a good day Sir
This post was edited on 11/3/24 at 5:06 pm
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:03 pm to Jon Ham
Seriously I would like to know why this is anchored so I can try to not get anchored going forward. Or if there is something I can change in OP to get it unanchored.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:03 pm to John Barron
That’s also true. Republicans are leading in early voting for the first time in decades.
But we’re supposed to believe all these people swapped their party affiliation to GOP over the last 4 years just to vote against Trump?
Come on.
But we’re supposed to believe all these people swapped their party affiliation to GOP over the last 4 years just to vote against Trump?
Come on.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:03 pm to Jon Ham
quote:Dude these are completely different circumstances compared to 2024
Lastly, she mentioned Indiana 2008 as an example of when a state had a big swing from one election to the next. GWB won Indiana in 2004 by 20%. In 2008, the RCP average had McCain +1.4 and Selzer’s final 2008 Indiana poll had Obama +1. Obama won by 1%. Point is, states can and do swing big from one election to the next.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:04 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
conservative men need to find somewhere else to live, because there's no saving this country through the ballot box.
I'll be staying right where I am.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:10 pm to Jon Ham
Pay close attention to the second graph. Indisputable proof her sample size had way to many liberal democrats
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:14 pm to Jon Ham
That’s a lot of words to say Seltzer sold out her own poll
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:19 pm to Jon Ham
The only backup data she released showed that the respondents number one issue was “our democracy.” Followed by abortion. Inflation and immigration were way down the list. LOL. This poll was fixed.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:19 pm to Jon Ham
r/politics is down the hall and to the left, concern troll.
Posted on 11/3/24 at 5:28 pm to Harry Ballz 2024
Looks like Jon Ham left the building. Back to DU
Popular
Back to top

13









