Pollster Ann Selzer ending election polling, moving 'to other ventures and opportunities'

[u/BastianMobile]

https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2024/11/17/ann-selzer-conducts-iowa-poll-ending-election-polling-moving-to-other-opportunities/76334909007/

[u/JeromesNiece]

It was unwarranted.

Polling is a crapshoot. There is no such thing as a pollster that has some brilliant methodology or sixth sense that can lead to consistently better results than other pollsters. Her "track record" was nothing more than a series of dumb luck.

Every local pollster in the country has been engaged in a coin flipping competition, and you all fell for the "winner" that got the most heads in a row.

This is why you need to just throw every result into an average and not get too excited.

[u/blewpah → u/JeromesNiece]

you all fell for the "winner" that got the most heads in a row.

Did anyone say with certainty that she was going to be accurate? Did she even say that?

[u/MariaKeks → u/blewpah]

I don't think anyone claimed it was literally 100% certain, but that's asking too much. However, there definitely were a lot of comments hyping her up, implying she was a lot more accurate than other pollsters. A selection of quotes:

If I were a betting man, I would NOT be betting against the GOAT Ann Selzer. (475 points)

Look at the early voting number + the gender gap in Iowa…obviously Selzer is right (57 points)

The lady doesn’t miss. If she’s off 4 points this time around, then Blexas and Blorida are in play and Dems probably win a trifecta. (42 points)

It's pretty clear other pollsters care more about their perception than they do about being accurate. (57 points)

Go home and play with Fivey, Nate. The adults (key man and seltzer lady) are predicting the president. (17 points)

Note that a lot of these comments were downvoted after they turned out to be wrong, so before the election they would have been rated even higher.

Meanwhile:

The Ann Selzer Methodology:

Release an outlier poll favoring Democrats and enjoy the adulation for a few days. Once Kamala loses Iowa (duh?), who knows what she'll do, but I couldn't care less. (0 points)

[u/Khiva → u/MariaKeks]

there definitely were a lot of comments hyping her up, implying she was a lot more accurate than other pollsters

Yeah look at this absolute clown:

Ann Selzer Is The Best Pollster In Politics

Five thirty .... something or other. Never heard of them. What do they know?

[u/MariaKeks → u/Khiva]

Just because you read something on the internet doesn't mean it's true.

This is actually another great example of the cherry picking of evidence that is at the root of the issue. Let me explain.

You are citing a years-old fluff piece by relative nobody Clare Malone who put “best pollster” in the headline without actually quantifying that in the copy to justify your belief that the Selzer poll was right. The justification hinges on the fact that 538 published Malone's article, and this makes some sense, since 538 specializes in election predictions, so they have some credibility on gauging the accuracy of pollsters.

But if Clare Malone is credible through association with 538, then certainly that applies also to Nate Silver, the literal founder of 538, who wrote that “Selzer will probably be wrong”.

Why is it that you trusted Malone's old article more than Silver's analysis? My guess is that you wanted Selzer to be right, so you wanted Malone to be right, and Silver to be wrong. But wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

And now you come here, posting sarcastically, implying that because you read Selzer is the best pollster on 538, you were totally justified in your belief that the Selzer poll would be correct. But what you didn't mention is that you chose to ignore all evidence to the contrary about Malone, just like you chose to ignore all evidence to the contrary about Selzer, and all evidence to the contrary about Harris.

[u/Pristine-Aspect-3086 → u/MariaKeks]

in the very nate silver article you're referencing he literally calls selzer and NYT/sienna the two best pollsters

[u/MariaKeks → u/Pristine-Aspect-3086]

The thesis of that article is “Selzer is great, but this time she is likely wrong”.

If you read that and your only take-away is “Selzer is great” then you're guilty of exactly the kind of selective reading I am talking about.

[u/Khiva → u/Pristine-Aspect-3086]

And the guy is complaining about "cherry picking."

The internet is immune is irony.