Latest news with #Selzer
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump steps up attacks on pollsters
President Trump has stepped up his attacks on pollsters since his victory in November, raising concerns for an industry that was already facing challenges to its credibility. Trump's latest attacks came this week when he called for pollsters to be investigated as many surveys show him with historically low approval ratings for a president 100 days into a White House term. He is already suing longtime pollster Ann Selzer over a poll released before Election Day that showed him trailing in Iowa. Experts said that while pollsters aren't likely to back down from doing their jobs due to Trump's threats, the attacks fuel concerns over free speech and add yet another challenge for an industry already struggling to restore the public's trust in its work. 'A big role of polling is to give a voice to regular people, and if regular people stop trusting that, then that's just one other facet of American political life where people are losing faith in core institutions, and I think that's something we all have to be concerned about,' said Michael Hanmer, the director of the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland. The past decade has arguably been a rough time for the polling industry. Trump pulled off an upset victory in 2016 after Hillary Clinton had widely been considered the favorite. While national polling averages correctly predicted Clinton's slight popular vote win, Trump was underestimated in the key states that put him over the top. Pollsters adjusted their methodologies, but many were even further off in 2020, correctly predicting President Biden's win but by a much smaller margin than expected. Much attention was on the polls ahead of last November to see whether 2024 would illustrate some of the same issues, and while polling accurately predicted the close race that it was nationally, Trump was the candidate who was slightly underestimated, allowing him to sweep all the key battlegrounds. With the country closely divided on key issues, pressure has grown on the industry to more accurately capture voter sentiment, said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. 'The country's roughly a 50-50 country, and most attention's spent on battleground states, which are the ones that are seen anyway,' he said. 'And I think it makes sense that polls will be asked to be very precise and sometimes beyond what's reasonable to do methodologically. If you had a 60-40 country, if you're off 3 or 4 points, no one cares.' But Trump has ramped up his threats against pollsters as part of a wider attack on institutions, Hanmer noted. The president sued Selzer and The Des Moines Register in December for its Iowa poll taken days before the election that showed him behind before he easily won the state. He alleged Selzer and the outlet engaged in deception, violating Iowa's consumer fraud laws. And he's more recently reignited this battle with polling as his approval rating has dropped to among the lowest levels for any president at this stage of their presidency. 'The New York Times has only 37% Trump 2024 voters, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll has only 34% Trump Voters, unheard of numbers unless looking for a negative result, which they are. These people should be investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the FoxNews Pollster while you're at it,' he posted on Truth Social on Monday. 'They are Negative Criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I WIN ELECTIONS BIG, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse,' he added. The New York Times denounced Trump's attack in a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, saying it won't 'be deterred by the administration's intimidation tactics. Top White House aide Stephen Miller piled on during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, telling anchor John Roberts that 'it is our opinion that Fox News needs to fire its pollster' and that the pollster has 'always been wrong' about Trump. Roberts addressed Miller's comments later in the broadcast. 'He made a remark that was critical of our polling, but here at Fox News, we stand by our polling, as we always have,' Roberts said. Experts said they don't expect Trump's legal challenge to be successful, and pollsters don't seem to be fearful. W. Joseph Campbell, a professor emeritus of communication at American University, argued Trump may be undercutting what could be a better argument attacking the polls' legitimacy. 'If Trump wanted to make some arguments against the polling industry, he could just point to those past [elections] and say, 'Hey, they underestimate my support. They're going to keep doing that, because they just don't know how to reach Trump supporters,'' Campbell said. 'That might be a more effective way to counter the polling numbers than to threaten to investigate them or as he did with Selzer.' 'That raises all kinds of First Amendment issues,' he added. Michael Traugott, a research professor emeritus at the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan, said the credibility issue that Trump's efforts expose is somewhat a reaction to the hyperpolarized times for the country. 'People will tend to find poll results more credible when the results show that a majority of people hold the same view that they do and less credible when they show a majority hold different position,' he said. Traugott said Trump may reap a political benefit in further shoring up his base as his approval declines outside his own party, which is normal for presidents as their term goes on. Meanwhile, pollsters said transparency is the key to rebutting the criticism, making their process and why they made their methodology decisions clear. 'That's been an age-old struggle to provide clarity and the context within which a poll was taken,' Miringoff said. 'So if you're doing a postconvention poll or a postdebate poll, there may be some short-term music, but it's important to provide the audience with context when poll was taken. And, obviously, not all polls are created equally.' But for the current moment, analysts also noted approval rating polls are different from election polls, and they're widely showing the same thing right now. 'This particular instance of what's going on right now is the public could take comfort in the fact that … polls are all going in the same direction,' Miringoff said, adding confidence that the numbers are painting the right picture. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
01-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump steps up attacks on pollsters
President Trump has stepped up his attacks on pollsters since his victory in November, raising concerns for an industry that was already facing challenges to its credibility. Trump's latest attacks came this week when he called for pollsters to be investigated as many surveys show him with historically low approval ratings for a president 100 days into a White House term. He is already suing longtime pollster Ann Selzer over a poll released before Election Day that showed him trailing in Iowa. Experts said that while pollsters aren't likely to back down from doing their jobs due to Trump's threats, the attacks fuel concerns over free speech and add yet another challenge for an industry already struggling to restore the public's trust in its work. 'A big role of polling is to give a voice to regular people, and if regular people stop trusting that, then that's just one other facet of American political life where people are losing faith in core institutions, and I think that's something we all have to be concerned about,' said Michael Hanmer, the director of the Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at the University of Maryland. The past decade has arguably been a rough time for the polling industry. Trump pulled off an upset victory in 2016 after Hillary Clinton had widely been considered the favorite. While national polling averages correctly predicted Clinton's slight popular vote win, Trump was underestimated in the key states that put him over the top. Pollsters adjusted their methodologies, but many were even further off in 2020, correctly predicting President Biden's win but by a much smaller margin than expected. Much attention was on the polls ahead of last November to see whether 2024 would illustrate some of the same issues, and while polling accurately predicted the close race that it was nationally, Trump was the candidate who was slightly underestimated, allowing him to sweep all the key battlegrounds. With the country closely divided on key issues, pressure has grown on the industry to more accurately capture voter sentiment, said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion. 'The country's roughly a 50-50 country, and most attention's spent on battleground states, which are the ones that are seen anyway,' he said. 'And I think it makes sense that polls will be asked to be very precise and sometimes beyond what's reasonable to do methodologically. If you had a 60-40 country, if you're off 3 or 4 points, no one cares.' But Trump has ramped up his threats against pollsters as part of a wider attack on institutions, Hanmer noted. The president sued Selzer and The Des Moines Register in December for its Iowa poll taken days before the election that showed him behind before he easily won the state. He alleged Selzer and the outlet engaged in deception, violating Iowa's consumer fraud laws. And he's more recently reignited this battle with polling as his approval rating has dropped to among the lowest levels for any president at this stage of their presidency. 'The New York Times has only 37% Trump 2024 voters, and the ABC/Washington Post Poll has only 34% Trump Voters, unheard of numbers unless looking for a negative result, which they are. These people should be investigated for ELECTION FRAUD, and add in the FoxNews Pollster while you're at it,' he posted on Truth Social on Monday. 'They are Negative Criminals who apologize to their subscribers and readers after I WIN ELECTIONS BIG, much bigger than their polls showed I would win, loose a lot of credibility, and then go on cheating and lying for the next cycle, only worse,' he added. The New York Times denounced Trump's attack in a statement to The Hill on Wednesday, saying it won't 'be deterred by the administration's intimidation tactics. Top White House aide Stephen Miller piled on during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, telling anchor John Roberts that 'it is our opinion that Fox News needs to fire its pollster' and that the pollster has 'always been wrong' about Trump. Roberts addressed Miller's comments later in the broadcast. 'He made a remark that was critical of our polling, but here at Fox News, we stand by our polling, as we always have,' Roberts said. Experts said they don't expect Trump's legal challenge to be successful, and pollsters don't seem to be fearful. W. Joseph Campbell, a professor emeritus of communication at American University, argued Trump may be undercutting what could be a better argument attacking the polls' legitimacy. 'If Trump wanted to make some arguments against the polling industry, he could just point to those past [elections] and say, 'Hey, they underestimate my support. They're going to keep doing that, because they just don't know how to reach Trump supporters,'' Campbell said. 'That might be a more effective way to counter the polling numbers than to threaten to investigate them or as he did with Selzer.' 'That raises all kinds of First Amendment issues,' he added. Michael Traugott, a research professor emeritus at the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan, said the credibility issue that Trump's efforts expose is somewhat a reaction to the hyperpolarized times for the country. 'People will tend to find poll results more credible when the results show that a majority of people hold the same view that they do and less credible when they show a majority hold different position,' he said. Traugott said Trump may reap a political benefit in further shoring up his base as his approval declines outside his own party, which is normal for presidents as their term goes on. Meanwhile, pollsters said transparency is the key to rebutting the criticism, making their process and why they made their methodology decisions clear. 2024 Election Coverage 'That's been an age-old struggle to provide clarity and the context within which a poll was taken,' Miringoff said. 'So if you're doing a postconvention poll or a postdebate poll, there may be some short-term music, but it's important to provide the audience with context when poll was taken. And, obviously, not all polls are created equally.' But for the current moment, analysts also noted approval rating polls are different from election polls, and they're widely showing the same thing right now. 'This particular instance of what's going on right now is the public could take comfort in the fact that … polls are all going in the same direction,' Miringoff said, adding confidence that the numbers are painting the right picture.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawsuit over newspaper's 2024 presidential poll moves to federal court
(Photo by simpson33 via iStock / Getty Images Plus) A lawsuit over a Des Moines Register poll that showed Kamala Harris leading Donald Trump in Iowa during the final days of the 2024 campaign has been moved to federal court. The lawsuit, one of two related to the poll, is a potential class-action case filed by the Center for American Rights on behalf of one West Des Moines man, Dennis Donnelly, against the Register, pollster J. Ann Selzer, and the newspaper's parent company, Gannett Co. It seeks actual damages totaling $2,799,600 — the alleged cost of an annual subscription for each of the Register's 40,000 subscribers — plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Because the lawsuit involves litigants headquartered in different states, and the total damages could exceed $5 million, the Register's parent company, Gannett Co., sought removal of the case from state court to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The lawsuit takes issue with a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll that Selzer conducted for the Register in the final days of the 2024 presidential campaign. The poll, published the Sunday before the election, showed Harris leading Trump among likely Iowa voters 47% to 44%. Trump went on to win Iowa with 56% of the vote to Harris' 43%. The lawsuit alleges 'a miss by 16 points is not an innocent error — it is either intentional fraud or reckless disregard for accuracy. Either way it is actionable.' It is based on the Center for American Rights' claim that Donnelly, a Register subscriber, 'was intensely frustrated by the inaccurate poll,' which was published on the Sunday before the election. It alleges Donnelly 'felt like the Register was disserving him and other readers when it ran, and when its results were compared to the final outcome.' The lawsuit seeks damages for alleged consumer fraud, professional malpractice and interference with the right to vote. The latter claim is based on the argument that 'it looks like the Iowa Poll did, in fact, increase Iowa public opinion favoring Harris to win the state.' The defendants in the case have denied any wrongdoing and the lawsuit has yet to win class-action status. A separate lawsuit against the Register and Selzer over the same poll results was filed late last year on behalf of Trump, U.S. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and former state senator Brad Zaun in Polk County District Court. Like the lawsuit filed on behalf of Donnelly, Trump's lawsuit has since been moved to federal court. In that lawsuit, Trump and his co-plaintiffs claim the poll results in their races were intentionally skewed and that in the presidential race 'Selzer was trying to generate fake enthusiasm and momentum for Harris.' The defendants are seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing the laws they are accused of violating are designed to regulate commercial businesses, not to constrain news reporting, and that polling results 'do not qualify as falsified facts' merely because they don't align with an election's outcome. 'In our constitutional system, a claim for 'fraudulent news' does not exist. Full stop,' attorneys for the newspaper argue. 'The remedy for disagreement with political speech one does not like is counter-speech — not court-enforced damages under the guise of commercial regulations.' In that same case, the Center for American Rights recently asked permission to file a brief of its own in the matter, arguing that its lawsuit on behalf of Donnelly was based on largely the same issues and that the center hopes to challenge 'the use and abuse of powerful and entrenched media institutions to distort our national debate.' U.S. Magistrate Judge William P. Kelly ruled against the center two weeks ago, finding that while the center clearly had an interest in Trump's lawsuit, the 'core arguments' the center would make have already been made by the president and his fellow plaintiffs in the case. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Chicago Tribune
23-04-2025
- Sport
- Chicago Tribune
Lake Zurich shortstop Kelly Selzer, a backspot in cheerleading, makes sure teammates ‘have each other's backs'
Lake Zurich's Kelly Selzer has learned a few things during her years as a cheerleader. The senior shortstop is leaning on that experience as she tries to push the Bears forward this season. 'I would watch football coaches screaming in the faces of a player, going really hard on them, and then after that, I would see their teammate go up to them and pat them on the back,' Selzer said. 'I saw teammates help each other and have each other's backs even when things are going wrong. 'Being in sports growing up, it definitely shaped me and caused me to be the athlete I am today.' Selzer, a Wisconsin-Oshkosh softball commit who is a three-year varsity starter, has been a backspot in cheerleading for all four years at Lake Zurich. 'The backspot is a person in the back who sees the trick develop, makes sure everything is in place and calls the stunts,' she said. 'That has allowed me to look at the big picture and trust my teammates.' For Selzer, it's all about the team. 'Cheerleading has taught me how to be a leader and bring your team together,' she said. 'It's not just about yourself but also the people around you.' Selzer has certainly earned the trust of the people around her. She's hitting .370 and has an .896 fielding percentage, helping the Bears (7-9-1, 4-1) compete in the North Suburban Conference this season. 'Kelly has always been very consistent for this program,' Lake Zurich coach Nicole Pieper said. 'We've moved her around in the batting order, but she's been able to produce. Kelly can play anywhere and has a lot of talent defensively.' Selzer, who also has a background in gymnastics and intends to study athletic training in college, said she has more confidence on the field this season. 'I have much better range,' she said. 'I take that risk and go for the ball more now. I'm also more aggressive swinging at the first pitch and not getting down in the count.' Pieper pointed out Selzer does much more for the Bears. 'Kelly is also our biggest leader on the team, both by example and vocally,' Pieper said. 'For a coach, it's great to have her on our team, especially for our underclassmen.' Lake Zurich sophomore middle infielder Kendall Hull, who is batting .516, appreciates having Selzer on her side. 'Kelly is a very talented player because of her hustle and energy,' Hull said. 'She's always making crazy plays in the field and getting clutch hits when we need them. 'She's been a role model for me in the infield, helping improve my game. She is always willing to help others if they need it and is giving 110% to the team every day.' Lake Zurich senior center fielder Isabella Vodicka, who is batting .446, has known Selzer for several years and agrees with Hull. 'I've always admired how Kelly interacted with people around her,' Vodicka said. 'Her teammates gravitate toward her because she's relatable, is grounded and always gives 100%.' Pieper has watched Selzer develop into that player. Pieper said she has known Selzer since she was 12. 'I've seen a lot of growth in her as a person, with her leadership the biggest thing,' Pieper said. 'She's a very supportive teammate.'
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Treating Journalism As Consumer Fraud, Trump Claims Coverage of a Presidential Poll Was Not 'News Reporting' (opinion)
Shortly before last year's presidential election, the Des Moines Register reported the results of a poll that gave Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, a three-point lead in Iowa. That surprising result, generated by a survey that pollster Ann Selzer conducted for the Register, proved to be off by more than a little: Donald Trump ultimately won Iowa by 13 percentage points. Trump is still mad about that survey, and he is trying to punish the Register and Selzer for it by persuading a federal judge in Iowa that it amounted to consumer fraud under state law. The obvious problem for Trump is that his fraud claim hinges on showing that he suffered damages because he reasonably relied on misrepresentations by the defendants in connection with the sale of "consumer merchandise." Since Trump did not buy anything from the Register or Selzer, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) argued in a motion to dismiss his lawsuit, he is trying to invent a tort that consists of reporting "fraudulent news," which would be plainly inconsistent with the First Amendment. Not so, Trump lawyers Edward Andrew Paltzik and Alan R. Ostergren say in their opposition to dismissal. The plaintiffs, who include two Iowa politicians as well as Trump, "have not brought a claim for 'fraudulent news' or for that matter, any claim involving news," Paltzik and Ostergren write, because "defendants were not engaged in any news reporting. Rather, Defendants intentionally (or at minimum, negligently) disseminated false polling data for increased profit and readership." When the Register reported that "Kamala Harris now leads Donald Trump in Iowa," in other words, the story might have looked like coverage of the presidential race. But it was actually not "news reporting" at all, because it was 1) inaccurate and 2) motivated by a desire for "increased profit and readership." If a news organization gets a story wrong while trying to make money or attract readers, according to Paltzik and Ostergren, it is not practicing journalism, even poorly. It is engaged in "commercial speech," which enjoys less protection under the First Amendment. That is not what "commercial speech" means, FIRE notes in a reply brief it filed last week. "'Commercial speech' is not speech someone was paid to produce, as Plaintiffs evidently think," write FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere and his colleagues, who represent Selzer. The commercial speech doctrine, as articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1980 case Central Hudson & Electric Corp. v. Public Services Commission, "applies to advertising—speech proposing commercial transactions." Trump's lawyers claim "Selzer's polls and the Register are 'consumer products' and 'commercial speech' because they operate for-profit businesses," Corn-Revere et al. note. That argument "would (or should) embarrass a first-year law student," FIRE says, noting that it contradicts "the very basic concept that speakers do not 'shed their First Amendment protections by employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech,'" as the Supreme Court put it in the 2023 case 303 Creative v. Elenis. That point, the Court explained, "underlies our cases involving everything from movie producers to book publishers to newspapers." Paltzik and Ostergren also assert that "false statements—whether on the pages of a newspaper or elsewhere—are a species of fraud and do not enjoy immunity from tort liability when the speaker makes the statements with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity." Here they are borrowing language from the law of defamation, which is irrelevant in this context, since Trump does not claim that Selzer or the Register defamed him. Paltzik and Ostergren misleadingly quote the Supreme Court's observation in the 1963 defamation case Garrison v. Louisiana that "the knowingly false statement and the false statement made with reckless disregard of the truth do not enjoy constitutional protection." This is "the guiding principle underpinning false speech," they claim, obscuring the fact that the case involved defamation, not false statements generally, and so has nothing to do with Trump's consumer fraud claim. Paltzik and Ostergren, in short, imply that false speech is not protected by the First Amendment—a proposition that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected in the 2012 case Alvarez v. United States. "Isolated statements in some earlier decisions do not support the Government's submission that false statements, as a general rule, are beyond constitutional protection," the justices said in Alvarez. "The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection." As FIRE notes, Paltzik and Ostergren do not even cite Alvarez, "the leading Supreme Court case rejecting a generalized First Amendment exception for 'false speech,'" let alone contend with its implications. "Plaintiffs offer a random collection of one-liners from defamation and commercial speech cases to suggest false speech generally lacks First Amendment protection," Corn-Revere et al. write. "The obvious problem with this is that it is precisely the line of argument the Supreme Court rejected in Alvarez." Trump's case, you may recall, is supposed to be about consumer fraud. Yet he has never satisfactorily explained in what sense he was defrauded as a consumer. The Iowa Consumer Fraud Act authorizes lawsuits by victims of misrepresentations "in connection with the advertisement, sale, or lease of consumer merchandise." But as FIRE notes, "Selzer's polls are not 'consumer merchandise' because they are not sold or leased 'primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.'" Trump also alleges fraudulent misrepresentation. "The 'representation' element pertains to a statement made to induce another into entering a transaction, such as a false statement made by a seller to a buyer," Corn-Revere et al. note. "Yet Plaintiffs point to no representations by Selzer for the purpose of inducing anyone (much less Plaintiffs) into a purchase." Two other elements of that claim—the materiality and intent of the statement—likewise contemplate a transaction that in this case never happened: "On all three elements, Plaintiffs are cutting out the transaction inducement element of fraud—the sine qua non ingredient that makes fraud a cognizable cause of action—and hoping the Court doesn't notice the misdirection." Trump also is supposed to allege that he justifiably relied on a false statement. Here, too, "Plaintiffs attempt to bypass the transaction aspect of fraud," FIRE says. "Justifiable reliance means that a defendant justifiably relied on a representation by a plaintiff when deciding whether to enter a transaction. If justifiable reliance were not tethered to an induced transaction, gamblers would sue ESPN analysts for failed sports bets, claiming they 'justifiably relied' on the sports expertise of the network's on-air talent. That is not how tort law works." The lack of a commercial relationship with Selzer or the Register also presents a problem for the plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim. "Selzer had no contract with Plaintiffs, express or implied, and Plaintiffs do not argue otherwise," Corn-Revere et al. write. "The pertinent question is whether Selzer had a legal duty to supply Plaintiffs with information. She did not, and Plaintiffs offer no authority creating a legal duty between a pollster and the politicians whose public support the pollster measures." In essence, FIRE says, Trump is claiming that "consumers of news should have a cause of action against news providers that get a story wrong through negligence." Accepting that premise would have a paralyzing impact on journalists, since they would be exposed to daunting legal expenses and potentially ruinous civil liability whenever their reporting was arguably misleading or inaccurate. "Once you get past the groundless assertions, campaign-style hyperbole, and overheated conspiracy theories, there is nothing left," FIRE concludes. "No legal basis whatsoever supports the claims, and Plaintiffs' opposition to the motions to dismiss reveals both shocking unfamiliarity with basic concepts of First Amendment law and a disregard of the pleading requirements for fraud or misrepresentation under Iowa law." Even though his claims are laughable, Trump already has punished the Register and Selzer by forcing them to defend against his legally groundless complaint. Notably, Iowa is not one of the 35 states with anti-SLAPP laws, which aim to discourage litigation targeting constitutionally protected speech by allowing expedited dismissal and requiring losing plaintiffs to pay their opponents' legal costs. As Trump's similarly frivolous lawsuit against CBS in Texas shows, even large media companies can succumb to such pressure, especially when it is combined with threats of regulatory retaliation. And even if Trump does not succeed in establishing a cause of action for "fraudulent news," this sort of litigation can have a chilling impact on journalism, which is what he explicitly hopes to accomplish. "We have to straighten out the press," Trump says, explaining his motivation for suing CBS and the Register. "I have to do it [because] our press is very corrupt." The post Treating Journalism As Consumer Fraud, Trump Claims Coverage of a Presidential Poll Was Not 'News Reporting' appeared first on
