ChiGoose

How does one know their poll is bad in the moment? Do you believe that Selzer should have compared her poll to others and if it didn’t match, toss it or change it? Because that’s an argument in favor of poll herding. Selzer missed the 2024 election by 16 points. She has also missed other elections by 11, 10, 9, 8, and 7 points over almost 30 years. She’s well regarded because the vast majority of her polls ended up very close to the final outcome. Because that’s how polling works. If you’re honest, you are going to miss. It happens. Selzer could have looked at her number being way off from the margin and done what her peers do: change her numbers to better fit the narrative. She did the correct thing by not doing so and now people are somehow claiming that this is evidence of her fudging the numbers.

Polling misses happen all of the time, it's just the nature of the business. You're taking a sample of people and extrapolating for an entire population. Most pollsters also include assumptions and try to fit their sample to the population (if 10% of the population is Demographic X but only 2% of the sample is Demographic X, they may decide to multiply the answers from Demographic X respondents by 5). To avoid looking as bad as Selzer does here, a lot of pollsters "herd" their polls: they fudge the numbers so their results look like what other pollsters are showing. This way they aren't way out on a limb. If a pollster has a result that shows John Doe +10 but the current polling average is John Doe +3, they can adjust their polling assumptions to get a number closer to +3. There has been a lot of discourse on the accuracy of polling (including here on PPP) and how to poll in a world where people don't use landlines and don't answer calls from numbers they don't know. Selzer's methods have been pretty good for most of her career but either her methodology no longer works, she was unlucky in her sample, or a combination of both. In any case, there's no evidence of anything nefarious here. Ultimately, I think the backlash against her poll is going to result in more pollsters herding instead of posting their real results and I think that's a bad thing.

If Selzer's numbers were correct, it'd almost certainly mean a Harris landslide where she won 350+ electoral votes. If Dem voters thought the race was in the bag, that would be more likely to decrease turnout than to increase it. Simplest explanation remains: she missed hard. Not the first time she's missed, but certainly the biggest one.

Selzer famously never herds her polls. She puts the work out there and she's right more often than wrong (she has had misses before). But because people don't understand polling/statistics and because (as you continually like to demonstrate) the MAGA population seems especially ignorant on how things work, they come up with conspiracies that don't make sense if given even the smallest amount of scrutiny. Let's say Selzer intentionally fudged her poll to boost Harris numbers. Why? What would that accomplish? A good media cycle? In an environment where all of the polls were showing the race basically even, the Selzer poll stood as a clear outlier. Remember that at the time, the Harris campaign was running on a theme of being the underdog. They did not want their voters to get complacent (which seems like a pretty accurate concern considering how things ended up). A popular poll showing numbers that would indicate a Harris landslide would go *against* the campaign's messaging at the time. Imagine you have a classroom of 20 students, you give each of them a coin and tell them to flip it 100 times and mark down how many times it came up heads. 19 of the 20 students reported that it landed heads 50 times while one of them reported heads 57 times. Who do you think was being honest vs who do you think was fudging the numbers?

Me: Much of the MAGA movement is built on ignorance Guy who can’t tell the difference between “equals” and “does not equal”: Ann Selzer intentionally tanked her career for a fake poll because… reasons.

There was a study years ago that showed that Fox News viewers knew less about current events than people who did not consume the news. I’d love for someone to run a similar study today in our current media environment because it’s clear that the underlying foundation of MAGA is ignorance and emotional reactions.

Hey kids, don’t do drugs.

I can see you are addicted to taking L’s to the level that would make Aaron Rodgers jealous. I made a simple point that is backed by facts and evidence. You then went on a long string of posts completely missing the point and confusing “does not equal” with “equal” because you are trapped in a small little bubble. You then went down the internet “debate me bro” line by throwing out challenges that have no bearing on the claim I made but make sense to you because (once again) you are living in a bubble. I encourage you to go talk to your (I’m assuming middle school?) teacher to explain to you how facts and logic work before you continue to embarrass yourself.

I believe that sanctuary cities do not increase crime. I believe that illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native born citizens. I believe these things because they are supported by data and studies. Therefore, I believe that people whose arguments that sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants increase crime rates are either ignorant or lying. I have been consistent on this the whole time. It’s you who has brought your prejudices, ignorance, and media biases into the discussion to pretend I said things I never said because it would fit your narrative. Maybe this is a time for you to do a little introspection as to how you screwed up so badly.

Please point to where I argued for more illegal immigrants.

“You think a strawman argument is a strawman argument? You think ‘does not equal’ doesn’t mean ‘equal’?” Hey kid, maybe ask your parents to limit your internet access at this point because you clearly don’t understand how to use it without embarrassing yourself.

Holy *****. You really are ignorant, huh? Imagine thinking that “=/=“ is the same as “=“ Incredible. Has anyone ever dunked on themselves this hard before?

How old are you? 12? You are seemingly fundamentally incapable of staying on topic and insist on introducing straw men arguments. In fact, your brain has been so pickled by your media bubble that there are very few actual arguments you present that are not a straw man. Please provide citation for the following: “You literally stated ‘sanctuary cities make cities better’”

It’s not my loophole, it’s the law. If people come here legally but overstay their welcome, that’s a civil matter, not a criminal one. Some examples of this would be someone being here on a visitor visa but then working without a work visa, or someone coming here on a student visa but quitting school to start a business. As far as policy is concerned, I think our legal immigration system is an abject disaster and no attempt to resolve illegal immigration without addressing the problems with our legal immigration system is doomed to failure. You keep doing the thing where you claim I said something I never did. Are you a child, or are you just dumb?

Ok, to make it simple for you because you’re clearly struggling here: ”Sanctuary city policies do not increase crime” =/= “Sanctuary cities make cities better*” *”better” or “improved” are subjective and non-falsifiable terms you are confusing with a different falsifiable claim. It is not a crime to be undocumented in the US. Something like 45% of people who we colloquially call “illegal immigrants” actually came here through legal means but are no longer in compliance (such as overstaying a visa or doing work that is not allowed under the visa that they came in on). Additionally, the studies are looking at whether or not illegal immigrants commit crimes once they are here since that is an apples-to-apples comparison.

You really do have some kind of cognitive issue, don’t you? Or are you allergic to responding to the point actually being argued? I am starting to feel bad for you. Sanctuary city policies do not increase crime. That’s the fact that is backed up time and time again when it is studied.

This is an excellent example of the brainrot that undermines the modern clickservative movement. It's all feelings, no facts. Arguments are mostly strawmen born of a media bubble that is unlikely to ever be penetrated by reality. Instead of looking at studies, facts, and data, it's all about emotional appeals and anecdotes designed to instill anger or fear in the viewer. But, if you look at reality: Sanctuary cities do not increase crime: Sanctuary cities and crime: This paper finds (1) no evidence that sanctuary policies cause an increase in any crime, (2) some evidence that they may lead to a decrease in property crime, and the effect is strengthened over time after the adoption, (3) the increased trust between residents and police is likely the reason for the negative effect. Sanctuary Policies Lower Counties' Crime Rates: In a study published in Social Science Research, researcher Marta Ascherio shows that both property crime and violent crime decreased more in sanctuary counties than in nonsanctuary counties after 2014, when many such policies were implemented. Her findings also suggest that sanctuary practices in counties improve political integration in immigrant communities, lead to positive spillover effects, and increase overall social harmony in the areas where they are implemented. Sanctuary Cities and Their Respective Effect on Crime Rates : Using publicly available data, this regression analysis investigates the relationship between crime rates in selected cities and independent variables which the research literature or the media has linked to criminal activity. Results of this research reveal that sanctuary cities do not experience higher violent or property crime rates than those cities that are not sanctuary cities No Evidence Sanctuary Cities ‘Breed Crime’: “We find no statistically discernible difference in violent crime rate, rape, or property crime across the cities,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings provide evidence that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates, despite narratives to the contrary.” Illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans: Debunking the Myth of the Migrant Crime Wave: Substantial research has assessed the relationship between immigration and crime. Numerous studies show that immigration is not linked to higher levels of crime, but rather the opposite. Studies have also examined the impact of the concentration of immigrants in a community on crime patterns, finding that immigration is associated with lower crime rates and an increase in structural factors — such as social connection and economic opportunity — that are linked to neighborhood safety. Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate: The study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes. Immigrants are significantly less likely to commit crimes than the U.S.-born: Study finds over a 150-year period, immigrants have never been incarcerated at a greater rate than those born in the United States Now, all of this makes sense if you both live in reality and are able to think past an immediate emotional reaction. If illegal immigrants are not going to be deported for talking to law enforcement, they are more likely to be willing to report crimes. In locations where local law enforcement also enforces federal border policy, illegal immigrants probably won't want to report crimes out of fear for themselves being deported. This also leaves them vulnerable to be a victim of crime (abuse, domestic violence, fraud, robbery, etc) if the perpetrator knows they are illegal and won't report the crimes for fear of being deported. If someone is willing to go through dangerous of coming into the country illegally, it's likely that they very much do not want to be sent back to the place they are escaping from. Therefore, it would make sense that once here, they would be careful not to run afoul of the law. While there is a lot of debate to be had about what immigration policy should look like, anyone basing that on the idea that illegal immigrants and/or sanctuary cities are driving increases in crime rates is either ignorant of the facts or arguing in bad faith.

Are you high? Or just so in deep in your own bubble that what you posted actually makes sense to you as a cogent argument and not a word salad of straw man arguments?

A sanctuary city is simply a city where the local police do not do the work of federal immigration enforcement. It’s not at the expense of the safety of actual citizens since studies consistently show that sanctuary cities have no measurable impact on crime (and may even have a slight downward effect). This makes sense to anyone who actually understands immigration and doesn’t get their news from a firehouse of misinformation as you seem to do, child.

Seems like somebody has very strong opinions about sanctuary cities despite clearly not knowing what a sanctuary city is.

This will be the first Christmas morning our son has had at home and I am so looking forward to it. His first Christmas was in the NICU and last year we were in Rochester with my family. This feels like a new chapter and I am excited for new traditions.

Bad people use civilians as shields. But do you believe it is good to just kill the civilians being used as shields? Do you believe all Muslims are bad?

“Yeah! Kill those kids! #ProLife” -Doc Pretty telling that your criticism of “hey maybe don’t kill civilians” is “LOL, those civilians don’t like you!” Do you think people only have dignity or a right to life if they agree with you?

Are we all still cheering on a government contractor being put in charge of where government money goes and pretending to be populists? Funny how one of the provisions that Musk got kicked was tighter controls about US investment in China. But we’re all still anti-China, right?

Looks like the terrorist was against Islam and a fan of Elon’s favorite German political party. What we know about the suspect behind the German Christmas market attack “Taleb’s X account is filled with tweets and retweets focusing on anti-Islam themes and criticism of the religion while sharing congratulatory notes to Muslims who left the faith. He also described himself as a former Muslim. He was critical of German authorities, saying they had failed to do enough to combat the “Islamism of Europe.” He has also voiced support for the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party. Some described Taleb as an activist who helped Saudi women flee their homeland. Recently, he seemed focused on his theory that German authorities have been targeting Saudi asylum seekers.“