I’ve been ripping on Strategic Vision, LLC, since before it was cool. Well, actually, it was cool back then to rip on them. It was even cool back in 2006. But now it’s cool again.
October 1, 2008:
12:59 <yevrah> most recent ppp, q, cnn show obama in the lead, susa m+1, rasmussen tied, strategic m+3
12:59 <Aerion> and seriously, strategic vision can eat it
October 9, 2008:
01:51 <Aerion> Chambliss 47, Martin 44
01:51 <yevrah_> so awesome
01:51 <Aerion> but wait, there's more!!
01:51 <Aerion> the trend is absurd!
01:51 <Aerion> i mean, strategic vision kind of sucks
01:51 <Aerion> but 57-28 ... to 47-44!?
November 3, 2008:
15:42 <PollBot> ** StrategicVision: PA, WA, WI (10/31-11/2)
15:43 <Aerion> ok, but fuck strategic vision
15:43 <nepharis> heh
I had always assumed it was just gross incompetence that led them to be generally wrong all the time, and that their secrecy was just paranoia or something. Or perhaps just a necessary side effect of the fact that they’re not impartial, but that they’re actually political strategists. (As I recall, most outfits labeled them with an (R) and considered their polls to be internals.) But I don’t think I suspected that they might (note: might) have just been wholesale making shit up, as Nate Silver almost-sort-of-accuses.
When I read Nate’s post this morning, I was naturally a little skeptical. It’s a little surprising to me that the trailing digit of polling data actually should be random. I’d have guessed a little more bias towards 9, considering pollsters tend to like to poll close races with top lines like 48-47. It’s hard to argue with the pretty graph showing all pollsters’ results, though.
But you know what? Forget the math. There’s two big things that stick out for me as serious red flags.
The first red flag: Strategic Vision’s response to the AAPOR complaint that originally prompted Nate’s investigation. Says CEO David Johnson:
We will be taking legal action. We have spoken with our attorneys and have gotten them the documentation and should know exactly the venue and specific charges that we will be filing against AAPOR specifically and individual members of AAPOR personally.
Such quick escalation to legal threats makes you look a lot worse than you already did. Especially when you levy said threats them against thoroughly nonthreatening organizations like AAPOR, whose primary weapon is mildly irritated letters. Belligerence betrays malfeasance. Almost always.
The second (much less important) red flag: Really? strategicvision.biz? Unless you’re selling your polling services on infomercials on the Game Show Network, that’s probably not an appropriate domain. Here’s ten bucks, go buy yourself a dot com.
(The title of this post is in reference to this belligerent blast from the past. Also, I had forgotten about the random Total Recall clip in that segment, so that’s kind of an added bonus.)