J. Ann Selzer and her company are now facing a second petition over an extraordinarily poor pre-election poll that showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump by 3 percentage points in bloody Iowa.  ,
On his way to easily winning a second non-consecutive presidential term a la Grover Cleveland, Trump walloped Harris by 13 points ( 56 % to 43 % ). Reviewers called into question the motivation of the 16-point “outlier” Iowa poll, conducted by West Des Moines-based Selzer &, Co. for the Des Moines Register newspapers published just three weeks before November’s election.  ,
Trump late last month sued Selzer, her poll company, the Des Moines Register and its Goliath business advertising family, Gannett Co. Inc. in Polk County, Iowa, alleging “brazen vote intervention”. In that lawsuit, the defendants are accused of hoping that the last Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll would” generate a false tale of inevitability for Harris in the last week of the 2024 National Election.” In brief, the issue charges, the pollster and the report violated Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act.  ,
The plaintiffs ‘ lawyers claim they will “vigorously protect the First Amendment.”
They’re on the security afterwards.  ,
‘ Flat-out, Monumentally, Aggressively Wrong ‘
On Tuesday, the Center for American Rights ( CAR ) filed a similar lawsuit, also in Polk County District Court, alleging that” the misleading polling results deceived consumers, distorted public perception, and undermined confidence in the electoral process”. Dennis Donnelly, a citizen of Iowa and a subscription to the Des Moines Register, is the subject of the complaint’s request for class action certification on behalf of all Iowa’s largest newspaper subscribers.  ,
The complaint expands on President-elect Trump’s statements, according to CAR president Daniel Suhr, in an interview with The Federalist on Tuesday. He claimed that there is a distinction between the internet being intentionally misled and making fair errors.  ,
According to Suhr, whose Chicago-based company has filed lawsuits against another corporate media outlets alleging they have influenced and influenced the poll,” we need to put an end to the notion that there are no victims when reports businesses engage in these things.” The Des Moines Register promises the solution is the information, fair and accurate information, and our client pays good money to purchase it. The company didn’t deliver on that promise” . ,
The Register promised truth and exactness, but the lawyer claimed in a press release that the dictionary only accepted fake news. ” The ballot wasn’t really wrong — it was flat-out, colossally, aggressively wrong. Every customer who paid for reputable reporting was defrauded in doing so.
In no way is it false or deceptive.
Reached for comment Tuesday, Nick Kleinfeld, legal counsel for The Des Moines Register, said the newspaper and Gannett were reviewing CAR’s “frivolous, copy-cat lawsuit” . ,
Kleinfeld wrote in an email to The Federalist,” This is the most recent in disturbing attempts to pervert consumer protection laws to control political talk protected by the First Amendment.”  ,
The lawyer called the outcomes of Selzer’s ballot “unexpected”, but “in no way false or deceptive” to the Register’s clients. Kleinfeld claimed that the failure to disclose the results of the madly down ballot would have done the paper’s readers a disservice.  ,
The Des Moines Register and Gannett will actively protect this false lawsuit in an effort to stand up for speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
‘ Oracle of Iowa ‘
The ballot was Selzer’s bird melody of her “life’s work”. This bird had a terrible event of bird flu. Selzer posted a farewell row in the paper that has published her elections for years after her bold claim that Harris “leapfrogs Donald Trump to take the lead near Election Day.” She was leaving her “life’s job” for “other initiatives and options”. She claimed to have informed the Register that she would not maintain her deal as soon as the first November election was conducted.  ,
What a way to emerge, projecting that a far-left Democrat incumbent had a bigger-than-swing-state result in a liberal state that has firmly supported Trump and other Democrats for the better part of the past ten years.  ,
Would it have been nice if a last surveys had been in line with the effects of Election Day? Of program. It’s ironic that it’s just the opposite”, Selzer wrote in the Register row.  ,
Ironic doesn’t seemed a large enough expression.  ,
Some users of the fawning business press have described Selzer’s function as the “gold standard” of voting. She’s lauded for her accuracy in predicting finalists in the first-in-the-nation conference position. Her supporters might point out that she is a true Merlin of political voting.  ,
” Every four times, J. Ann Selzer is the’ it’ poll of British politicians… Time and again, her surveys stood alone as the best estimate of what happened on Election Day”, proclaims Selzer’s profile on the website of BigSpeak, a motivational speech booking company. As the site notes, Selzer has been referred to as” Queen Ann”, the” Princess of Polling”, and the” Duchess of Data”. FiveThirtyEight.com dubbed her” the Best Pollster in Politics” . ,
The “oracle of Iowa” therefore went so far as to say that her final political poll, which came only three days before the election, was incorrect.  ,
Selzer’s assessment of her own surveys, published in the Register on the same day she wrote her Old Pollsters Not Die row, showed” no likely second suspect has emerged to reveal the vast disparity”, the publication’s Carol Hunter wrote.  ,
Selzer’s thorough examination of her work gave the piece a more oblique defence of Selzer, the Register, and the 80-year-old Iowa surveys.  ,
” Thank you for reading and for caring about the accuracy of details you consume”, Hunter, who recently retired as executive director of the paper, wrote.  ,
‘ What are the Chances’?
On Tuesday, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ( FIRE ) announced it will represent Selzer in a what it calls Trump’s “meritless” lawsuit that “violates long-standing constitutional principles”.
FIRE takes aim at the prosecution’s usage of Iowa’s consumer scams law, which targets sellers who make false claims to move merchandise. Tuesday evening, a FIRE official could not be reached for comment, but the nonprofit known for its free speech battles on college campuses issued a statement about Trump’s complaint.  ,
According to FIRE’s chief counsel Bob Corn-Revere, “punishing someone for their political prediction is about as unconstitutional as it gets.” ” This is America. No one should be concerned about predicting the outcome of an election. Whether it’s from a pollster, or you, or me, such political expression is fully and unequivocally protected by the First Amendment”.
But the First Amendment is no shield against “wrong and reckless” reporting to influence the outcome of an election, Suhr said. As James Piereson, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, wrote in The New Criterion, the debate— and now the legal arguments— comes down to a basic question:” Was the Iowa poll an honest error, or one manipulated to achieve a foreordained result” ? ,
What are the chances of finding a true sample of Iowa voters who showed Harris with a lead of three points when her opponent actually won by thirteen points? Those odds are slim to none”, wrote Piereson, who formerly taught political theory at Iowa State University.
According to the lawsuit, the Des Moines Register poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percent, or “or by as many as five standard deviations from the true result as revealed on election day,” which allegedly missed the Iowa presidential vote by 16 points.
What are the chances of using legitimate methods to create such a sample? Answer: roughly one time in 3.5 million trials”, Piereson asserts. ” In other words, given these odds, the results in the Iowa poll likely did not come about by ‘ honest error. ‘”  ,
‘ Can Harris Win Iowa?’
According to the research fellow, the poll indicated Harris was performing exceptionally well among women voters, leading by 28 points among independent women and by 35 points among women over 65.
Harris ‘ campaign was heartened by the poll, which raised concerns for Trump supporters. According to some, it was seen as a sign that Harris might win the election on the strength of a flurry of female voters, according to Piereson.  ,
The headline on MSNBC’s website screamed,” Can Harris win Iowa? VP is in the lead over Trump, according to a surprising Iowa poll.
” It could be an outlier poll, but just to emphasize … the reason we’re talking about it, this kind of poll, the Des Moines Register poll, has correctly predicted Iowa’s presidential results in every race since 2008″, the left-wing news outlet’s giddy anchor said at the time.  ,
At ABC News, the headline read:” Poll showing Harris up in Iowa throws’ monkey wrench ‘ into election prognosis: Expert”. Maybe, just maybe, said expert suggested, the Register poll indicted something happening in the critical swing states to bolster Harris ‘ chances.  ,
In response to the poll, Rick Klein, ABC News Washington bureau chief and political director, responded,” There aren’t many people who think Donald Trump is going to suddenly lose the state that he won by eight points ]in 2020.  ,
There was no weakness. Trump won the election in all seven swing states, clinching his first-ever victory in the process.  ,
‘ Was This Intentional?’
Early in November, Selzer told the Des Moines Register about her poll findings,” It’s hard to say anyone saw this coming.” ” She] Harris ] has clearly leaped into the leading position”.
She — Harris — clearly had not. Nobody anticipated” this,” because Selzer had created a poll that even the outliers must have scoffed at. Selzer’s poll, according to her attorneys and the Register’s lawyers, was nothing wilful or careless about it. Discovery will tell, Suhr said.  ,
” The First Amendment is very clear. It doesn’t protect intentional or reckless fraud by media organizations”, The Center for American Rights attorney said. ” We’re going to find out in the discovery process, was this intentional? Did anyone raise red flags? Were those people steamrolled? All of those inquiries deserve answers from the subscribers and the American people.
The lawsuits will have to pass the motions to dismiss first. Gannett successfully fought to have the case transferred to Iowa’s federal court.  ,
Trump recently won a significant legal battle with the corporate media. According to the terms of the settlement, ABC will cut a check for$ 15 million to Trump’s presidential library fund in order to pay a fine for George Stephanopoulos ‘ false claims that he was held accountable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll.  ,
Matt Kittle covers The Federalist’s senior elections coverage. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
