Poll Fight!

[Lemur]

But I do know business. If you're a young, up-start up and comer in an IP-based business, it is to your distinct advantage to learn how the successes in your industry make their secret sauce. Sure, they disclose their own methodology, because they know it's not sought after.

This isn't quite applicable -- RCP does reveal which polls they include. They just don't say why. Anywhere. What set 538 off was the inclusion of a notably flaky poll that suddenly favored McCain at a time when Obama's numbers are on an upswing. It was suspicious, and without any rationale or logic from RCP, it looks odd.

ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.

Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible. [...]

What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.

No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This isn't quite applicable -- RCP does reveal which polls they include. They just don't say why. Anywhere. What set 538 off was the inclusion of a notably flaky poll that suddenly favored McCain at a time when Obama's numbers are on an upswing. It was suspicious, and without any rationale or logic from RCP, it looks odd.

ARG had been effectively "banned" from RCP for several months now, going back to the Democratic primaries. Sometimes RCP listed ARG polls with an asterisk and did not include them in their averages; more often they didn't list them at all.

Why didn't RCP include ARG's polls in its averages? Presumably because they had an exceptionally erratic performance during this year's primaries, a performance that -- when coupled with ARG's relative lack of disclosure about its methodology -- had led RCP to conclude that their polls were not credible. [...]

What I do know, however, is that whatever RCP's reasons were for excluding ARG from its averages, none of those reasons should have changed over the past 48 hours. Did ARG suddenly improve its level of disclosure? No. Did their polls suddenly become more accurate? How could they, when we haven't had any elections to evaluate them.

No. The only thing that changed is that ARG released a set of three polls yesterday that had considerably more favorable numbers for John McCain than other contemporaneous polls of those states. In each of those states -- North Carolina, Virginia, Nevada -- ARG is presently the outlier on the John McCain side (tied with Mason-Dixon in the case of Virginia). RCP did not feel any compulsion to include ARG's numbers when ARG cycled through all 50 states a couple of weeks ago (including many where there has been very little polling). Only when ARG released this gravity-defying set of polling in Virginia and North Carolina and Nevada did RCP suddenly have a change of heart.

It really sounds like you are stretching this thing. I'm glad that you've brought 538 to our attention. It is one more site to bounce numbers off of. Maybe I'll average RCP with 538 and be sure to disclose my methodology!