I’m favorably disposed toward Nate Silver, because he supports Barack Obama and because of his work with baseball stats. But, seriously, dude?
He first wrote about the allegedly right-leaning RCP in a post called “Real Credibility Problems.”
Look — I’m not going to tell you that my site is completely devoid of spin. I am a Democrat, and I see the world through a Democratic lens. But what I can promise you is that we’ll keep the spin separate from our metrics. The spin is a side dish, which you can choose to consume or ignore.
Unfortunately, that is not a choice you have at RCP. Their partisan leaning is infused into their numbers. If RCP disclosed their methodology — articulated their rationale for excluding or including certain polls — I would give them the benefit of the doubt. But they do not, so I do not.
And then yesterday, he writes:
I just concluded a long, and understandably fairly contentious phone conversation with John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics.
John strongly disputes the notion that he is cherry-picking polls to achieve a particular partisan result (pro-GOP or otherwise).
It is clear to me that there is substantial subjectivity in how RCP selects the polls to include in its averages. RCP does not publish an FAQ, or any other set of standards. Nor, in my conversation with John, was he willing to articulate one. In my view, the fact that RCP does not disclose a set of standards means ipso facto that they are making judgment calls — that there is some subjectivity involved — in how their polls are selected.
I adore blog beef.
For those of you who actually care about, say, the numbers, here are today’s EV maps from both 538.com and RCP. (FYI: 538 does an Election Day projection, while RCP does daily snapshots.)