Trump Sues Newspaper Over Election Interference

[AlleyCat]

Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.

It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

It's a Psyop, idiot.

Fat Tubby Clinton vs Trump in the Polls Now 6 Point Lead

Trump WINS!

Hillary Clinton Widens Lead (AND her ass) Over Donald Trump In New National
Polls

Trump WINS!

Clinton Holds 11-Point National Lead Over Trump: NBC/WSJ Poll

Trump WINS!

Poll: Clinton Opens Up Double-Digit Lead Over Trump

Trump WINS!

"Last week's results showed voters without a college degree supported Clinton
over Trump by 2 points, 47 percent to 45 percent."

Trump WINS!

Hillary Clinton Widens Lead Over Donald Trump In New National Polls
Updated on: August 5, 2016 / 7:12 PM / CBS/AP

Trump WINS!

A week after the conclusion of the Democratic national convention, Hillary
Clinton is continuing to widen her advantage over Donald Trump, according to a
pair of new national polls out Friday.

Trump WINS!

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Clinton is up nine percentage points
over Trump, with the Democratic nominee garnering 47 percent of support
compared to Trump's 38 percent among registered voters nationwide.

Trump WINS!

With third-party candidates included, Clinton maintains her nine-point lead:
forty-three percent to Trump's 34 percent, while Libertarian party nominee Gary
Johnson has 10 percent, and the Green Party's Jill Stein has five percent.

Trump WINS!

A McClatchy/Marist poll shows a more dramatic 15-point lead for Clinton: the
former secretary of state has 48 percent of support among voters nationwide,
versus Trump's 33 percent.

Trump WINS!

Last month, Clinton was ahead by just three points: 42 to 39 percent.
Campaign 2016 ?

Trump WINS!

Third-party candidates made little difference in the McClatchy/Marist poll as
well, with Clinton retaining a double-digit lead: forty-five percent to Trump's
31 percent. Johnson notches 10 percent with Stein at six percent.

Trump WINS!

Clinton's lead in both polls reflects growing support from two key demographic
groups: white and male voters. White voters in the McClatchy/Marist survey, for
instance, supported Clinton 41 percent to Trump's 39 percent.

Trump WINS!

Another poll by GenForward, conducted by the Black Youth Project at the
University of Chicago, surveyed young voters to determine what they thought of
the two presidential candidates.

Trump WINS!

Neither Trump nor Clinton is well-liked by young adults overall, with just 38
percent saying they have a favorable view of Clinton and even fewer -- 21
percent -- saying they have a favorable view of Trump.

Trump WINS!

On Clinton's email scandal, among all young adults in the GenForward poll, 43
percent say Clinton intentionally broke the law in her use of a personal server
while she was secretary of state, and another 20 percent think she did so
unintentionally.

Trump WINS!

As for the rest, 27 percent think she showed poor judgment but did not break
the law, and 8 percent say she did nothing wrong at all.

Trump WINS!

More than half of young whites - 54 percent - think Clinton intentionally
committed a crime, and another 17 percent think she did so unintentionally.

Trump WINS!

Young African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Hispanics view Clinton's actions
in a more sympathetic light, though few clear her of all wrongdoing. Just 32
percent of Hispanics, 29 percent of Asian-Americans and 21 percent of African-
Americans think Clinton intentionally broke the law, with most of the remainder
saying she either did so unintentionally or showed poor judgment that did not
amount to lawbreaking.

Trump WINS!

The WSJ/NBC survey was conducted from July 31 to August 3 among 800 registered
voters. The poll had a 3.5 percent margin for error. The McClatchy/Marist
survey of 1,132 adults was conducted August 1, with a margin of error of 2.9
percentage points. The GenForward poll of 1,940 adults age 18-30 was conducted
July 9-20. The margin of error is 3.8 percentage points.

Trump WINS!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

"Falsifying" can be a broad term.

No... no one changed the numbers(that we know of), but there ARE infinite ways you can "falsify" a poll to go the way you want it to.

Polling of and in certain demographics, being just one.

We'll have to wait and see what EXACTLY Trump's lawyers will accuse these media outlets of. Until then, I'm going with...

... telling people they don't need to vote, because their candidate is too far behind to win, with "faked" polls.

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration

[AlleyCat]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.

The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

It WILL put fear into those outlets who said things that were simply untrue, being a "rapist", to name just one.

Expect MANY Congressional hearings for those like Adam Schiff and his RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA!, being subpoenaed to bring their evidence.

Schiff, for years kept saying he had evidence... never brought any into any hearing. Not one time.

It's time to punish those who rely on "word of mouth" being "evidence" and destroying people's lives in the interim.

It's ALWAYS months to years before the truth can be told and we're tired of that shit.

Either cough up the evidence, or YOU'RE going to be the one punished.

It must be a sad existence to believe what everyone on the left says, and then go about as if it WAS true.

There are fucking morons here, that still quote old lies as if they were true.

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Post by AlleyCat
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/

I can't find the full complaint but the article quoted from it:

"Selzer’s polling ‘miss’ was not an astonishing coincidence — it was
intentional."

That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

[Chris Ahlstrom]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer’s polling ‘miss’ was not an astonishing coincidence — it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

Trump has been a bully all his life.

He's in sore need of a good ol' country ass-whuppin'.

[Skeeter]

In article <vjuhhh$29s28$***@dont-email.me>, ***@teleworm.us
says...

Post by Chris Ahlstrom

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

Trump has been a bully all his life.
He's in sore need of a good ol' country ass-whuppin'.

That leaves you out of the picture.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:09:04 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom says...

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Trump has been a bully all his life.

That's how you become a billionaire and not a Usenet troll.

=====

The judge hasn't entered the JUDGMENT OF GUILT yet, so no... CERTAINLY not a "convicted felon".

Rubenfeld emphasized that Trump is not yet a convicted felon because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT.

See? Pansy-ass little child thinks he's smarter than a REAL lawyer.

Has the JUDGE entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT? HAS he, Juan Merchan, approved the verdict and enter a final judgment?

Nope and nope, so no... Trump is still NOT A CONVICTED FELON. Doesn't REALLY matter though... does it? (see below)

You should simply have read this article which explains it... even in New York:

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS NOT ENTERED A JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained THAT IN NEW YORK,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

You lose again, loser.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

=============================================================================

Why TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT After His Conviction - NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-still-run-president-guilty-verdict-conviction-rcna154801

May 30, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president after his hush money conviction? The former president was convicted on 34 felony counts of
falsifying business records and will be sentenced on July 11.


=====

Can Trump Still Run For President? Can He Still Vote? - CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/can-trump-still-run-for-president-what-matters/index.html

May 30, 2024 - Now that a New York jury has convicted former President Donald Trump of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, the next
obvious question is: Can a convicted felon run for president?

The US Constitution lays out just three requirements for presidential candidates. They must:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

Trump Is Now A Convicted Felon: Can He Still Run For President? - USA TODAY -

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/30/donald-trump-convicted-felony-president/73904298007/

May 30, 20241:09. Donald Trump is the first former president convicted of a crime in U.S. history, BUT IT WON'T STOP HIM FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
AGAIN. His conviction on Thursday does not bar him from ...

=====

Trump Guilty Plea: Can He Still Run For President? Questions Answered

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/2024/05/31/donald-trump-guilty-what-happens-now-7-major-questions-answered-jail-president-vote-cohen-
daniels/73920427007/

May 31, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president in 2024? Yes. The U.S. Constitution does not bar anyone from running for president after they become
a felon. The only qualifications are the following:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

YES, INDICTED TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT, But Winning Is A ...

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1164822171/trump-run-president-campaign-arrest-charges-voters-indictment

Mar 22, 2023 - Yes, Trump can run for president. Fortunately for Trump, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting candidates with criminal
records from holding office. In fact, an individual only has to be ...

=====

What Happens After Trump Is Convicted In NY Trial? | TIME

https://time.com/6980638/what-happens-if-donald-trump-convicted/

May 21, 2024 - CAN TRUMP STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT? YES. A felony conviction will not disqualify Trump from continuing his presidential campaign, even
if he were jailed.

=====

Could Trump Become President After Being Convicted Of A Crime? - Los ...

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-04-15/trump-trial-president-constitution-conviction

Apr 15, 2024 - Published April 15, 2024 Updated May 30, 2024 3:04 PM PT. WASHINGTON -. Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted
of felony crimes. A New York jury on Wednesday found him ...

COULD TRUMP BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME?

YES.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAW THAT PREVENTS A FELON FROM HOLDING THE NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICE.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by AlleyCat

Post by Chris Ahlstrom
Trump has been a bully all his life.

That's how you become a billionaire and not a Usenet troll.

It is easier for a camel to pass an eye of a needle then a rich
man to enter heaven.

[Skeeter]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

Payback for what?

[Skeeter]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

Payback for what?

Defamation.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

Payback for what?

Defamation.

What defamation?

[Skeeter]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

Payback for what?

Defamation.

What defamation?

Saying he raped someone when he didn't.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

Payback for what?

Defamation.

What defamation?

Saying he raped someone when he didn't.

That's the ABC case which has no relevance to this case.

[Skeeter]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was
falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS
to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Not so bingo! He filed the lawsuit.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5043821-donald-trump-des-moines-register-ann-selzer-lawsuit/
"Selzer?s polling ?miss? was not an astonishing coincidence ? it was
intentional."
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

Payback for what?

Defamation.

What defamation?

Saying he raped someone when he didn't.

That's the ABC case which has no relevance to this case.

Huh? ABC defamed him and lost.

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 07:55:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
That is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Trump is a world-class crybaby
asshole who can't accept winning, let alone losing.

It's called payback.

Payback for what?

Do you live UNDER your mommy's basement?

=====

The judge hasn't entered the JUDGMENT OF GUILT yet, so no... CERTAINLY not a "convicted felon".

Rubenfeld emphasized that Trump is not yet a convicted felon because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT.

See? Pansy-ass little child thinks he's smarter than a REAL lawyer.

Has the JUDGE entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT? HAS he, Juan Merchan, approved the verdict and enter a final judgment?

Nope and nope, so no... Trump is still NOT A CONVICTED FELON. Doesn't REALLY matter though... does it? (see below)

You should simply have read this article which explains it... even in New York:

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAS NOT ENTERED A JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained THAT IN NEW YORK,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

You lose again, loser.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-donald-trump-isnt-a-convicted-felon-yet/ar-BB1no6oV

Until then, he remains NOT A CONVICTED FELON, but that could change depending on the outcome. Read more: What's Really Going On With Donald Trump's
Marriage. Trump's Sentencing Isn't Until July 2024.

=====

According To One Legal Expert, Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

https://www.grunge.com/1593064/donald-trump-not-convicted-felon-heres-why/

May 31, 2024 - "FYI: due to odd quirk in the law, TRUMP IS NOT A 'CONVICTED FELON' UNTIL SENTENCING, which is July 11 - Th. You will hear that term a
lot but it's legally inaccurate until July 11 - Th," he wrote. So far, a number of major publications have used such language in their stories about
the Trump verdict, hence

=====

Donald Trump Isn't A Convicted Felon

Rubenfeld emphasized that TRUMP IS NOT YET A CONVICTED FELON because the judge has not entered a JUDGMENT OF GUILT. He explained that in New York,
this judgment is expected to be entered on July 11, the same day as Trump's sentencing.

=============================================================================

Why TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT After His Conviction - NBC News

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-still-run-president-guilty-verdict-conviction-rcna154801

May 30, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president after his hush money conviction? The former president was convicted on 34 felony counts of
falsifying business records and will be sentenced on July 11.


=====

Can Trump Still Run For President? Can He Still Vote? - CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/politics/can-trump-still-run-for-president-what-matters/index.html

May 30, 2024 - Now that a New York jury has convicted former President Donald Trump of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, the next
obvious question is: Can a convicted felon run for president?

The US Constitution lays out just three requirements for presidential candidates. They must:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

Trump Is Now A Convicted Felon: Can He Still Run For President? - USA TODAY -

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/30/donald-trump-convicted-felony-president/73904298007/

May 30, 20241:09. Donald Trump is the first former president convicted of a crime in U.S. history, BUT IT WON'T STOP HIM FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT
AGAIN. His conviction on Thursday does not bar him from ...

=====

Trump Guilty Plea: Can He Still Run For President? Questions Answered

https://www.usaToday - .com/story/news/2024/05/31/donald-trump-guilty-what-happens-now-7-major-questions-answered-jail-president-vote-cohen-
daniels/73920427007/

May 31, 2024 - Can Trump still run for president in 2024? Yes. The U.S. Constitution does not bar anyone from running for president after they become
a felon. The only qualifications are the following:

Be a natural born citizen.
Be at least 35 years old.
Have been a US resident for at least 14 years.

Trump meets all three requirements.

=====

YES, INDICTED TRUMP CAN STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT, But Winning Is A ...

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/22/1164822171/trump-run-president-campaign-arrest-charges-voters-indictment

Mar 22, 2023 - Yes, Trump can run for president. Fortunately for Trump, there's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting candidates with criminal
records from holding office. In fact, an individual only has to be ...

=====

What Happens After Trump Is Convicted In NY Trial? | TIME

https://time.com/6980638/what-happens-if-donald-trump-convicted/

May 21, 2024 - CAN TRUMP STILL RUN FOR PRESIDENT? YES. A felony conviction will not disqualify Trump from continuing his presidential campaign, even
if he were jailed.

=====

Could Trump Become President After Being Convicted Of A Crime? - Los ...

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-04-15/trump-trial-president-constitution-conviction

Apr 15, 2024 - Published April 15, 2024 Updated May 30, 2024 3:04 PM PT. WASHINGTON -. Donald Trump became the first former president to be convicted
of felony crimes. A New York jury on Wednesday found him ...

COULD TRUMP BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME?

YES.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAW THAT PREVENTS A FELON FROM HOLDING THE NATION'S HIGHEST OFFICE.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying
polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote,
because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll
was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump
THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Chant 'discovery'! That always shut the fat fuck up.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:28:33 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800,  Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying
polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote,
because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump
THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Chant 'discovery'! That always shut the fat fuck up.

Well discovery put an end to the ABC lawsuit so there's that.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:46:57 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

What were the actual results?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Then why are you here???

[pothead]

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:46:57 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

What were the actual results?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Then why are you here???

The funiest part is that after the election the Harris team admitted that their internal polling had never
shown Harris ahead and in fact in most places she was losing badly.

This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.
--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:

Example of Snit trolling in real time:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ>

All about the snit troll:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by pothead
This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.

How accurate do you think polls have been in the past?

[pothead]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by pothead
This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.

How accurate do you think polls have been in the past?

Pretty much the same level of inaccuracy however we did not have the Internet and social
media spewing the results within seconds to the entire world.
That's the difference.
--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:

Example of Snit trolling in real time:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ>

All about the snit troll:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by pothead

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by pothead
This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for predicting campaigns/elections.

How accurate do you think polls have been in the past?

Pretty much the same level of inaccuracy however we did not have the Internet and social
media spewing the results within seconds to the entire world.
That's the difference.

You are correct not much has changed. But the polls are useful in
estimating the odds of a candidate winning thanks to poll aggregators
like Nate Silver who came into prominence on the Internet.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by pothead

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 16:46:57 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls
is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because
your candidate is too far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Trump won Iowa by 13%.
The Des Moines Register had Harris up... by a lot.

3%-points.

What were the actual results?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Trump's simply trolling... that's why the headline is "Trump
THREATENS to Sue the Des Moines Register".

Bingo! He should shut the fuck up like every other troll should.

Then why are you here???

The funiest part is that after the election the Harris team admitted
that their internal polling had never shown Harris ahead and in fact
in most places she was losing badly.
This election should seal polling's fate as an accurate metric for
predicting campaigns/elections.

Was Truman crass enough to sue the
"Dewey predicted to win by a landslide"?
pollsters? Was Bush mean enough to sue
the "Gore expected to win" pollsters?

Or is that level of pettiness just
a Trump thing.......

[NoBody]

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

We'll wait while you duck and dodge and ultimately not answer the
question.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.

https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

[super70s]

"It's election interference," says the Jan. 6 riot organizer.

ROTFLMAO, what a cretin.

They should start a Gofundme to fight this asshole this time. The Des
Moines Register's pockets aren't as deep as ABC's.

[Skeeter]

In article <vjuse7$2c66n$***@dont-email.me>, ***@super70s.invalid
says...

Post by super70s
"It's election interference," says the Jan. 6 riot organizer.
ROTFLMAO, what a cretin.
They should start a Gofundme to fight this asshole this time. The Des
Moines Register's pockets aren't as deep as ABC's.

Go woke go broke

[NoBody]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".

You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.

What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?

Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".

She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.

The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.

There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).

(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.

In the end, it was a bad decision, but a perfectly honest and reasonable
one.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".

She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.

There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided. That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).

Which says nothing to the point.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.

And yet she failed big time here and didn't find the "problem" until
now?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
In the end, it was a bad decision, but a perfectly honest and reasonable
one.

Laughter.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".

She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.

There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided.

She took a deep dive here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/

Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.

Post by NoBody
That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?

She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).

Which says nothing to the point.

It's exactly on point as to whether she honestly felt her non-recall
weighted numbers were correct.

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.

And yet she failed big time here and didn't find the "problem" until
now?

Again, she can't know there is a problem until after the election.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:13:11 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".

She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.

There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/
Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.

Any pollster who doesn't think the public remembers what party they
last voted for is laughable. This is her theory????

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?

She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.

Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
There were good reasons to recall weight and also not to. On the plus
side, in both 2016 and 2020 most pollsters (***) who did not recall
weight missed Trump voters because these voters were less likely to
agree to take the poll. On the other hand, recall weighting has been
lousy when Trump is not on the ballot (see for example the mistakes made
by Rasmussen and Trafalgar in both 2018 and 2022).

Which says nothing to the point.

It's exactly on point as to whether she honestly felt her non-recall
weighted numbers were correct.

She was wrong apparently and how did sirens not go off in her head
when her results were so far out of everyone else's? Wouldn't a
responsible pollster ask these questions before publishing?

As for her theory, it's laughable.

Oh and it's her fourth excuse listed.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(***) Selzer is not "most pollsters." She was the most accurate Iowa
pollster in both 2016 and 2020 (the other pollsters underestimated
Trump, she stood alone getting his margin of victory correct) even
though she did not recall weight. It makes perfect sense for her to use
the same methodology that worked in the past when Trump was on the ballot.

And yet she failed big time here and didn't find the "problem" until
now?

Again, she can't know there is a problem until after the election.

Wrong. If you see that you're an "outlyer" it behooves you to verify
your work. She destroyed her career by resting on her laurels of her
reputation and ignored clear signs that the poll was wrong.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:13:11 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".

She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.

There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/
Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.

Any pollster who doesn't think the public remembers what party they
last voted for is laughable. This is her theory????

Yes. Nate Cohen of the NY Times had an excellent article detailing the
good and bad of recall weighting, and how there remains no consensus on
whether to use it. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/upshot/polling-methods-election.html

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?

She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.

Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.

The same thing happened in 2016 and 2020 when she had Trump far ahead of
what all the other pollsters had. She did not reexamine then (and stood
alone in being right), and did not do so now (and stood alone in being
wrong).

But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

[NoBody]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:13:11 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:31:18 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".

She did explain. She chose not to recall weight her poll.
The poll asks who they voted for in 2020. In this case, she had a higher
percentage of Biden 2020 voters than there actually were. Had she
adjusted her sample to match the actual percentage of Biden 2020 voters,
she would have had Trump +6 which matches the average of all the other
Iowa polls.

There's no citation direct from her to support this that you've
provided.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25318922-nov-2024-iowa-poll-ann-selzer-review-and-analysis-002/
Theory 4 on Page 10 discusses recall weighting.

Any pollster who doesn't think the public remembers what party they
last voted for is laughable. This is her theory????

Yes. Nate Cohen of the NY Times had an excellent article detailing the
good and bad of recall weighting, and how there remains no consensus on
whether to use it. Unfortunately, the article is paywalled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/06/upshot/polling-methods-election.html

Sounds like a terrible practice for a person who was supposedly so
professional and meticulous. Again, her results were so obviously
wrong that she should have looked at what was wrong before rushing to
publish an obviously incorrect poll. Naturally when she does her
postmortem she lists it FOURTH on the list of "theories" (excuses).

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
That sounds like a huge oversight. Wouldn't a pollster,
upon seeing results like she got note that it was way out of bed with
reality and find the problem before publishing?

She doesn't know she is wrong until after the election.

Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.

The same thing happened in 2016 and 2020 when she had Trump far ahead of
what all the other pollsters had. She did not reexamine then (and stood
alone in being right), and did not do so now (and stood alone in being
wrong).

Yep. That's why she no longer has any crediblility. When you make an
obviously wrong poll once, you'd best see why it was wrong and fix it
(unless you intend to mislead and gives a foundation for a lawsuit).

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

I know if I personally was so off base in my profession, I would make
damn sure I found out why so it wouldn't happen again.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.

This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be false, I
don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be false, I
don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be false, I
don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know, no
pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous for many
reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore winner.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be false, I
don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know, no
pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous for many
reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore winner.

When Trump won in 2016 he STILL
claimed he was "cheated" because
"millions of illegals voted for
Hillary". All unproven, of course.

Just like how "the judges were
bribed I was cheated" when his TV
Show failed to win an Emmy.

This the lesson children will
be learning. Never accept a loss,
alway play the victim card, claim
corruption and threaten to sue.
The test was rigged, the race
was rigged, the debate format
was rigged, the science fair
judges were biased.

Just what we need, a whole
generation of Karens.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by Mitchell Holman
When Trump won in 2016 he STILL
claimed he was "cheated" because
"millions of illegals voted for
Hillary". All unproven, of course.
Just like how "the judges were
bribed I was cheated" when his TV
Show failed to win an Emmy.
This the lesson children will
be learning. Never accept a loss,
alway play the victim card, claim
corruption and threaten to sue.
The test was rigged, the race
was rigged, the debate format
was rigged, the science fair
judges were biased.
Just what we need, a whole
generation of Karens.

The military officers swear to defend the Constitution from all
enemies foreign or domestic. They can point to the 14th that he is
unqualified.

[Skeeter]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be false, I
don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know, no
pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous for many
reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore winner.

He was defamed and won.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be false, I
don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know, no
pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous for many
reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore winner.

He was defamed and won.

That's the ABC/Stephanopoulos case and they settled out of court. This
thread is about Trump's lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the
past) it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be
false, I don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know,
no pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous
for many reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore
winner.

He was defamed and won.

That's the ABC/Stephanopoulos case and they settled out of court. This
thread is about Trump's lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer.

Trump University settlemment - "that proves nothing!"

Trump Foundation settlement - "that proves nothing!"

Trump ABC settlement - "See, Trump won!"

[Skeeter]

In article <***@185.151.15.160>, ***@aol.com
says...

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the
past) it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be
false, I don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know,
no pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous
for many reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore
winner.

He was defamed and won.

That's the ABC/Stephanopoulos case and they settled out of court. This
thread is about Trump's lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer.

Trump University settlemment - "that proves nothing!"
Trump Foundation settlement - "that proves nothing!"
Trump ABC settlement - "See, Trump won!"

He did didn't he?

[NoBody]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 10:04:42 -0700, Skeeter

Post by AlleyCat
says...

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the
past) it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be
false, I don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know,
no pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous
for many reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore
winner.

He was defamed and won.

That's the ABC/Stephanopoulos case and they settled out of court. This
thread is about Trump's lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer.

Trump University settlemment - "that proves nothing!"
Trump Foundation settlement - "that proves nothing!"
Trump ABC settlement - "See, Trump won!"

He did didn't he?

Ever notice that Mitchie wil wonder as far off topic as needed to
avoid when he's lost on the *actual* topic?

[Skeeter]

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 10:04:42 -0700, Skeeter

Post by AlleyCat
says...

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the
past) it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be
false, I don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know,
no pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous
for many reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore
winner.

He was defamed and won.

That's the ABC/Stephanopoulos case and they settled out of court. This
thread is about Trump's lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer.

Trump University settlemment - "that proves nothing!"
Trump Foundation settlement - "that proves nothing!"
Trump ABC settlement - "See, Trump won!"

He did didn't he?

Ever notice that Mitchie wil wonder as far off topic as needed to
avoid when he's lost on the *actual* topic?

Most of his responses are stupid and bot like.

[Skeeter]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

Fraud is not protected by the First Amendment.

Dipshit was using 'fraud' with a nonlegal meaning.
This would be considerred political speecch which has additional
protections.

If Selzer intentionally published poll results she knew to be false, I
don't think she is protected by the First Amendment.

When has a pollster ever been successfully
sued for defamation?

The lawsuit claims consumer fraud, not defamation. As far as I know, no
pollster has been successfully sued. Trump's case is frivolous for many
reasons. He is a bully, crybaby, sore loser and sore winner.

He was defamed and won.

That's the ABC/Stephanopoulos case and they settled out of court. This
thread is about Trump's lawsuit against pollster Ann Selzer.

I don't care.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?

Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional
misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known
to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant
of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or
otherwise causing injury.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."

That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

Siri quoted California law. Trump's lawsuit is in Iowa where the law states:

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

[NoBody]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
following:

"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."

While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

No. Again:

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action."

No one else may bring an action (i.e., sue).

[NoBody]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

I quote from the exact law to which you refer and you say 'no".

Laughter.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

I quote from the exact law to which you refer and you say 'no".

Your quote describes what constitutes a violation of the law. It does
not say boo about how one goes to court to get relief from that
violation. My quote does and is strictly limited to someone who has lost
money or property.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

I quote from the exact law to which you refer and you say 'no".

Your quote describes what constitutes a violation of the law. It does
not say boo about how one goes to court to get relief from that
violation. My quote does and is strictly limited to someone who has lost
money or property.

It does state what actions would qualify as actionable so not exactly
honest of you to leave it out.

This will play out in court and will be interesting.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

I quote from the exact law to which you refer and you say 'no".

Your quote describes what constitutes a violation of the law. It does
not say boo about how one goes to court to get relief from that
violation. My quote does and is strictly limited to someone who has lost
money or property.

It does state what actions would qualify as actionable so not exactly
honest of you to leave it out.

I did not leave it out. I quoted it above (repeated here):

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."

Trump may not sue unless he can state that he lost money or property as
a result of the poll.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:26:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

I quote from the exact law to which you refer and you say 'no".

Your quote describes what constitutes a violation of the law. It does
not say boo about how one goes to court to get relief from that
violation. My quote does and is strictly limited to someone who has lost
money or property.

It does state what actions would qualify as actionable so not exactly
honest of you to leave it out.

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."

You left out eveything (paragraphs worth of criteria) that I provided
from your citation.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Trump may not sue unless he can state that he lost money or property as
a result of the poll.

That will be a matter for the courts to decide. We shall see.
Not sure how many times I'll have to repeat this for you.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:26:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:20 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:35 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:18:12 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud.  That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation,
deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with
the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person
of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Excellent point! Even if Selzer acted fraudulently, Trump has to show
the poll caused him to lose money even though he didn't pay for the poll.

"the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a
person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
That is not limited to money.
What is the matter with you two?

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/714H.pdf

This should be an interesting case. Also in this law contains the
"
2009 Acts, ch 167, §2, 9
714H.3 Prohibited practices and acts.
1. A person shall not engage in a practice or act the person knows or
reasonably
should know is an unfair practice, deception, fraud, false pretense,
or false promise, or
the misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission of a
material fact, with the
intent that others rely upon the unfair practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false
promise, misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, or omission in
connection with the
advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise, or the
solicitation of contributions for
charitable purposes. For the purposes of this chapter, a claimant
alleging an unfair practice,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation
must prove that the
prohibited practice related to a material fact or facts.
“Solicitations of contributions for
charitable purposes” does not include solicitations made on behalf of
a political organization
as defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a
religious organization as
defined in section 13C.1, solicitations made on behalf of a state,
regionally, or nationally
accredited college or university, or solicitations made on behalf of a
nonprofit foundation
benefiting a state, regionally, or nationally accredited college or
university subject to section
509(a)(1) or 509(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986."
While he may not be able to recover money, the law doesn't appear to
stop him from suing under the law.

I quote from the exact law to which you refer and you say 'no".

Your quote describes what constitutes a violation of the law. It does
not say boo about how one goes to court to get relief from that
violation. My quote does and is strictly limited to someone who has lost
money or property.

It does state what actions would qualify as actionable so not exactly
honest of you to leave it out.

"A consumer who suffers an ascertainable loss of money or property as
the result of a prohibited practice or act in violation of this chapter
may bring an action at law to recover actual damages."

You left out eveything (paragraphs worth of criteria) that I provided
from your citation.

The only criteria you quoted is what conduct (from Selzer in this case)
could lead to an action in court. That's a necessary, but not sufficient
condition for suing. The part I quoted adds *another* necessary
condition (Trump lost money or property in this case).

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Trump may not sue unless he can state that he lost money or property as
a result of the poll.

That will be a matter for the courts to decide. We shall see.
Not sure how many times I'll have to repeat this for you.

Care to bet? I will put up $100 and give you 100-to-1 odds that Trump
does not sue without claiming he lost money or property.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 05:59:04 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:27:59 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

So what if it is a fraud? First amendment, sunshine.

First Amendment doesn't cover fraud with malicious intent, dimbulb.

Who did she take money from?
Civil Code 3294. (3) “Fraud” means an intentional
misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known
to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant
of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or
otherwise causing injury.

That doesn't say money is a required element, dimbulb.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.

The same thing happened in 2016 and 2020 when she had Trump far ahead of
what all the other pollsters had. She did not reexamine then (and stood
alone in being right), and did not do so now (and stood alone in being
wrong).

Yep. That's why she no longer has any crediblility. When you make an
obviously wrong poll once, you'd best see why it was wrong and fix it
(unless you intend to mislead and gives a foundation for a lawsuit).

She was right in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology.

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

[NoBody]

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

And Josh snips a bunch of context to avoid replying to the points
raised.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
Her poll was so out of whack with every other poll that she should
have reexamined it before publishing. Her failure to do so is
negligence on her part.

The same thing happened in 2016 and 2020 when she had Trump far ahead of
what all the other pollsters had. She did not reexamine then (and stood
alone in being right), and did not do so now (and stood alone in being
wrong).

Yep. That's why she no longer has any crediblility. When you make an
obviously wrong poll once, you'd best see why it was wrong and fix it
(unless you intend to mislead and gives a foundation for a lawsuit).

She was right in 2016 and 2020 using the same methodology.

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

But, let's assume for the sake of argument you are right and she should
have understood there was a problem and not published. Because she did
not believe there was a problem, she is only negligent, not fraudulent.
Under those circumstances, her decision to publish is protected by the
First Amendment.

[NoBody]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?
But, let's assume for the sake of argument you are right and she should
have understood there was a problem and not published. Because she did
not believe there was a problem, she is only negligent, not fraudulent.
Under those circumstances, her decision to publish is protected by the
First Amendment.

I guess this will be the third time I have to say this. If she knew
the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected. This is what
discovery is for.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

Well?

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But, let's assume for the sake of argument you are right and she should
have understood there was a problem and not published. Because she did
not believe there was a problem, she is only negligent, not fraudulent.
Under those circumstances, her decision to publish is protected by the
First Amendment.

I guess this will be the third time I have to say this. If she knew
the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected. This is what
discovery is for.

We already agreed on that.

[NoBody]

On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

Well?

Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
publication.

Clear enough?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But, let's assume for the sake of argument you are right and she should
have understood there was a problem and not published. Because she did
not believe there was a problem, she is only negligent, not fraudulent.
Under those circumstances, her decision to publish is protected by the
First Amendment.

I guess this will be the third time I have to say this. If she knew
the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected. This is what
discovery is for.

We already agreed on that.

Glad to hear we agree!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

Well?

Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
publication.
Clear enough?

So, she was wrong to publish in 2016 and 2020 without first closely
examining to verify her methodology even though it turned out she was
right and all the other polls were wrong?

What examination would you have her do?

[NoBody]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

Well?

Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
publication.
Clear enough?

So, she was wrong to publish in 2016 and 2020 without first closely
examining to verify her methodology even though it turned out she was
right and all the other polls were wrong?

You have a major bad habit of repeating yourself after a question has
been answered.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

<eyeroll>

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

Well?

Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
publication.
Clear enough?

So, she was wrong to publish in 2016 and 2020 without first closely
examining to verify her methodology even though it turned out she was
right and all the other polls were wrong?

You have a major bad habit of repeating yourself after a question has
been answered.

I did it just to confirm you are standing by your absurd answer (and you
are!).

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

Well?

Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
publication.
Clear enough?

So, she was wrong to publish in 2016 and 2020 without first closely
examining to verify her methodology even though it turned out she was
right and all the other polls were wrong?

You have a major bad habit of repeating yourself after a question has
been answered.

I did it just to confirm you are standing by your absurd answer (and you
are!).

Nothing "absurd" about consistancy. Sorry you have difficulty with
it.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.

Just because something hasn't broken doesn't mean isn't cracking.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.

The only thing she would have found was Trump would be +6 with recall
weighting. And, she would have noted that had she recall weighted in
2016 and 2020, she would have gotten it wrong.

What should she have done next? That's easy: don't use recall weighting
and publish the poll as Harris +3.

[Skeeter]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.

The only thing she would have found was Trump would be +6 with recall
weighting. And, she would have noted that had she recall weighted in
2016 and 2020, she would have gotten it wrong.
What should she have done next? That's easy: don't use recall weighting
and publish the poll as Harris +3.

Notice: Trump won.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 11:09:33 -0700, Skeeter

Post by Skeeter

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.

The only thing she would have found was Trump would be +6 with recall
weighting. And, she would have noted that had she recall weighted in
2016 and 2020, she would have gotten it wrong.
What should she have done next? That's easy: don't use recall weighting
and publish the poll as Harris +3.

Notice: Trump won.

Shhhh. Josh still seems to think that Selter's poll was correct....

[NoBody]

On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:27:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.

The only thing she would have found was Trump would be +6 with recall
weighting.

Which would have completely turned that poll around (and she'd still
have a job).

Oy....


And, she would have noted that had she recall weighted in

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
2016 and 2020, she would have gotten it wrong.
What should she have done next? That's easy: don't use recall weighting
and publish the poll as Harris +3.

Her methodology failed which made her unemployed. I'm still not sure
why you're arguing this point.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 08:27:03 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

{snip}

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.

The only thing she would have found was Trump would be +6 with recall
weighting.

Which would have completely turned that poll around (and she'd still
have a job).
Oy....
And, she would have noted that had she recall weighted in

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
2016 and 2020, she would have gotten it wrong.
What should she have done next? That's easy: don't use recall weighting
and publish the poll as Harris +3.

Her methodology failed which made her unemployed. I'm still not sure
why you're arguing this point.

According to you, she should have not published her raw polls in 2016
and 2020, instead adjusting them to be in line with other polls (after
closer examination). If she had done so, she would have been wrong. By
*not* doing so, she was right. Nonsense!

[NoBody]

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 08:36:31 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 08:12:47 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 24 Dec 2024 07:20:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:19:48 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 07:44:55 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Sat, 21 Dec 2024 08:02:30 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
But assuming for the sake of argument she is negligent, the First
Amendment protects her because negligence does not establish fraud.

Once again, if she knowingly published a poll with a known bad
methodology (as you had noted, she had the same issue in the past)
it's fraud. That's what discovery is for.

Again, she was right in 2016 and 2020. There was no reason for her to
believe her methodology was wrong.

When the result was completely out of bed, that's a clear indicator
her methodology was wrong. A responsible pollster would have avoided
publishing the poll without understanding the problem.

In 2016 and 2020 she was an outlier (different than the other polls).
Was that a clear indicator she was wrong? Should she have avoided
publishing without understanding the problem?

Well?

Well what? Any poll that is way out whack with other polls should be
closely examined to verify its methodology before going to
publication.
Clear enough?

So, she was wrong to publish in 2016 and 2020 without first closely
examining to verify her methodology even though it turned out she was
right and all the other polls were wrong?

You have a major bad habit of repeating yourself after a question has
been answered.

I did it just to confirm you are standing by your absurd answer (and you
are!).

Nothing "absurd" about consistancy. Sorry you have difficulty with
it.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What examination would you have her do?

Specific ways of verification of methodology I leave to the
professions but again, I've answered your question already.

There was no examination for her to do. She was right! And, that's why
your answer was absurd.

And you seem to think due dilligence shouldn't be a thing. Her same
methodology FAILED this year. Had she verified how she went about the
previous poll she may have prevented the career ender this poll did.
Just because something hasn't broken doesn't mean isn't cracking.

Interesting what Josh snipped out and refused to address in his
reponse.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
I guess this will be the third time I have to say this. If she knew
the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected. This is what
discovery is for.

We already agreed on that.

Glad to hear we agree!

Except narrow exceptions of fraud or defamation, lying is
protected speech. That is why FOX, ONAN, RNC, etc, are still business.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

I guess this will be the third time I have to say this.  If she knew
the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected.  This is what
discovery is for.

We already agreed on that.

Glad to hear we agree!

Except narrow exceptions of fraud or defamation, lying is protected
speech. That is why FOX, ONAN, RNC, etc, are still business.

Not quite.

In the controlling case, Alvarez v. United States, the Court held that
the federal law which criminalized lying about receiving a military
honor was unconstitutional. But, only four justices said lying is
protected speech except in fraud, defamation and perjury.

Two other justices, in the controlling opinion, said each case must be
decided on its own merits based on whether the risk to truthful speech
outweighs the harm done by false speech. They held the law was too broad
because it categorically proscribed lying about the honor. In response,
Congress modified the law to say you can't lie about a military honor
with the purpose of receiving a material gain. That law remains in effect.

But your point about FOX and all other news outlets is valid. All nine
justices agreed that in matters of politics, lying is protected speech.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 25 Dec 2024 13:10:18 -0800, Siri Cruise

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
I guess this will be the third time I have to say this. If she knew
the methodology was flawed, then it's not protected. This is what
discovery is for.

We already agreed on that.

Glad to hear we agree!

Except narrow exceptions of fraud or defamation, lying is
protected speech. That is why FOX, ONAN, RNC, etc, are still business.

Posting information you know to be false is not protected.

Oh and you left out ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC et al.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody
Wrong. If you see that you're an "outlyer" it behooves you to verify

No, it does not. Fox got hit because they were acting with malice
knowing they were wrong and ignoring warnings. Rush Limbaugh's
clown clone got hit for the same reasons.

Post by NoBody
your work. She destroyed her career by resting on her laurels of her
reputation and ignored clear signs that the poll was wrong.

That is up to the editors and readers, not you.

[Siri Cruise]

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".
You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.
What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?
Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.

Where is 'election interference' a tort in Illinois law or US Code?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls
is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because
your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".
You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.
  What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?
Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.

Where is 'election interference' a tort in Illinois law or US Code?

Trump sued under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. The claimed damages are
"he need[ed] to expend extensive time and resources, including direct
federal campaign expenditures, to mitigate and counteract the harms of
the Defendants' conduct."

Because the law limits damages to natural persons, even assuming Trump
can make his case (he can't), he would then have to show what time and
money he personally spent as a result of the poll (his campaign is not a
natural person). I'm not sure he can even show any expenditures his
campaign made in response to the poll.

Yet another reason why this lawsuit is garbage.

[pothead]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Siri Cruise

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:01:01 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 11:30:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls
is the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because
your candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

It's called an outlier. It's supposed to happen a small portion of the
time. Pollsters who throw away outliers are engaging in a bad practice
called herding.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trust-a-pollster-more-when-it-publishes

So the answer is "no".
You should have just said that instead of trying to justify it.
  What are the odds of the historically accurate poll being completely
out of whack only several days before the election?
Her lack of explanation of the flaws is itself an explanation cause a
credible pollster would go back and see what went wrong.

Where is 'election interference' a tort in Illinois law or US Code?

Trump sued under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act. The claimed damages are
"he need[ed] to expend extensive time and resources, including direct
federal campaign expenditures, to mitigate and counteract the harms of
the Defendants' conduct."
Because the law limits damages to natural persons, even assuming Trump
can make his case (he can't), he would then have to show what time and
money he personally spent as a result of the poll (his campaign is not a
natural person). I'm not sure he can even show any expenditures his
campaign made in response to the poll.
Yet another reason why this lawsuit is garbage.

That lawsuit will go nowhere.
--
pothead

All about snit read below. Links courtesy of Ron:

Example of Snit trolling in real time:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.os.linux.advocacy/c/biFilzgCcVg/m/eUcNGw6lP7UJ>

All about the snit troll:

<https://web.archive.org/web/20181028000459/http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/snit.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529043314/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitlist.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20190529062255/http://cosmicpenguin.com/snitLieMethods.html>

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 07:15:56 -0500, NoBody says...

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Did the poll's author ever explain what went wrong with her "poll"
that resulted in it being completely out of line with the state's
actual results?

She "selected" a certain demographic and they probably 86'd any kind of evidence of it.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

[AlleyCat]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.

Yeah, like mailing people to vote on different dates or in different places or not at all because their candidate is either too far ahead to lose or
too far behind to win, huh?

That's protected, huh?

=====

Trump WINS!

Donald Trump is the 47th U.S. president, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Republican Donald Trump was elected President of the United States in the 2024 election, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump, 78, will begin his second term early next year.

Donald Trump will be inaugurated as the U.S. President on Monday, January 20, 2025, on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

A Second Trump Administration

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by AlleyCat
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth says...

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.

Yeah, like mailing people to vote on different dates or in different places or not at all because their candidate is either too far ahead to lose or
too far behind to win, huh?
That's protected, huh?

Nope, as Volokh explained in another post () he linked to in the one I
cited
(https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/08/vp-candidate-tim-walz-on-theres-no-guarantee-to-free-speech-on-misinformation-or-hate-speech-and-especially-around-our-democracy/)
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/).

[super70s]

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the
same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate
is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the
poll was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment.
But Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

And Trump is always squealing about his 1st Amendment rights.

I thought I heard him say he was going to sue NBC and ABC for not
carrying his election night victory speech live. He's also upset when
people ignore him, lol.

[Skeeter]

In article <vjv65v$2e02v$***@dont-email.me>, ***@super70s.invalid
says...

Post by super70s

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is the
same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your candidate
is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the
poll was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment.
But Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

And Trump is always squealing about his 1st Amendment rights.
I thought I heard him say he was going to sue NBC and ABC for not
carrying his election night victory speech live. He's also upset when
people ignore him, lol.

Free speech can come at a cost.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

Of course you didn't consider that.

<eyeroll>

Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.

Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.

(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.

Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.

And if she knew they were a lie?

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.

Laughter. I'm sure. Wouldn't a responsible pollster go back and
examine what went wrong and publish those results? She quit instead.
That says plenty.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.

Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.

And if she knew they were a lie?

She is not protected by the First Amendment.

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.

Laughter. I'm sure. Wouldn't a responsible pollster go back and
examine what went wrong and publish those results?

She did as I detailed in my other reply.

[NoBody]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:11:02 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 08:34:51 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:33:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by AlleyCat
Pure election interference, JUST like 2016.
It was election interference, plain and simple. Falsifying polls is
the same as telling people they don't need to vote, because your
candidate is too
far behind to win.

This is just plain, fucking stupid. There is no way the poll was falsified.

Interestingly, I hadn't considered the possibility that even if the poll
was falsified, it is protected speech under the First Amendment. But
Eugene Volokh did.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/12/18/trump-v-selzer-likely-going-nowhere/

Of course you didn't consider that.
<eyeroll>
Even freedom of speech of the press is limited when it comes to
publishing malicious intent and full knowlege that the information is
wrong. Just ask ABC and Boy George. This is not to say I agree that
Trump should win but to debunk the idea that you can publish anything
you want whenever you want.

Of course fraud and intentional lying is not protected (Volokh did not
say otherwise). But the poll is protected if Selzer believes the numbers
are real, even if the numbers are a lie. That is, Trump will have to
prove Selzer knew she was lying. No way (*). The lawsuit is frivolous.
Trump is a sore-winner, cry-baby, bully.

And if she knew they were a lie?

She is not protected by the First Amendment.

Hence the lawsuit. We'll see what happens.

Post by Josh Rosenbluth

Post by NoBody

Post by Josh Rosenbluth
(*) As I explained in my other reply, she honestly believed in her
methodology and her numbers.

Laughter. I'm sure. Wouldn't a responsible pollster go back and
examine what went wrong and publish those results?

She did as I detailed in my other reply.

Appreciate your digging. Naturally the media did a great job of not
reporting this.