3 ms·

This is pretty damning stuff. In a well-functioning media environment, it would be sufficient to seriously damage the credibility of the pollster involved (Stra

by isamuel 17y ago

This is pretty damning stuff. In a well-functioning media environment, it would be sufficient to seriously damage the credibility of the pollster involved (Strategic Vision), or at least shift the burden to them to explain their behavior. Instead, we already see clues about what will happen: the pollster is threatening a lawsuit, which will be a sure loser but nonetheless drain resources and time from its target (either Nate himself or fivethirtyeight). The polls from the offending pollster will, I'm completely certain, be reported with utter credulity in the 2010 election cycle and beyond. The fact that the books are cooked will not even be mentioned in media reports, and will ultimately matter not at all. This is because we simply do not have a well-functioning media environment.

cwan 17y ago
I think their lack of disclosure has already severely damaged them. Ultimately, in this case it would seem the damage will be pretty brutal unless Nate Silver was wrong. Either they don't sue and don't disclose and the result is no one trusts them enough to pay for their polling (after all, what's the point in paying for a poll if it's going to come under question afterwards?) or they'll sue while not releasing the support for their polls/data on their merits - and that also opens them up to discovery which could be even more damaging. The best case scenario at this point is if they can publicly prove Nate Silver is wrong. And based on their policies in the past of not releasing the additional supporting data, I suspect this won't happen.
smhinsey 17y ago
It does nothing to help their credibility that they are basically riding the coat tails of another firm, called Strategic Vision Inc. (the firm he is challenging is Strategic Vision, LLC), which is something Nate mentions in one of his posts on the matter. That right there ought to serve as a pretty big negative indicator of credibility, but it doesn't seem to matter much to the media, if they even do enough research to notice that they aren't the "real" Strategic Vision.

by isamuel 17y ago

cwan 17y ago

I think their lack of disclosure has already severely damaged them. Ultimately, in this case it would seem the damage will be pretty brutal unless Nate Silver was wrong. Either they don't sue and don't disclose and the result is no one trusts them enough to pay for their polling (after all, what's the point in paying for a poll if it's going to come under question afterwards?) or they'll sue while not releasing the support for their polls/data on their merits - and that also opens them up to discovery which could be even more damaging. The best case scenario at this point is if they can publicly prove Nate Silver is wrong. And based on their policies in the past of not releasing the additional supporting data, I suspect this won't happen.

smhinsey 17y ago

It does nothing to help their credibility that they are basically riding the coat tails of another firm, called Strategic Vision Inc. (the firm he is challenging is Strategic Vision, LLC), which is something Nate mentions in one of his posts on the matter. That right there ought to serve as a pretty big negative indicator of credibility, but it doesn't seem to matter much to the media, if they even do enough research to notice that they aren't the "real" Strategic Vision.