Nate Silver at 538 talks about the whole dissecting polls deal, or "unskewing" them. All polls must make methodological choices, and all of those choices have advantages and disadvantages. Spending a lot of time trying to dissect those choices and passing judgment on them is not as productive as: 1. Looking at aggregates of lots of polls. 2. Looking at the variance that a poll captures from one iteration of it to ano…
I don't understand this criticism. Usually when people bring this sort of thing up, they have a specific criticism in mind (e.g., Exxon Mobil on global warming): they have identified an opinion that is sufficiently, demonstrably, wrong, and then they go looking for a reason how someone might get it wrong, so one conclusion might be is "having a dog in the fight". But the logical chain here goes one way: first you demonstrate that they are wrong, then you ask why.
But what's wrong with someone working with polls in a professional sense, expressing an opinion on best practices in polling and statistics? After all, stuff that Silver writes about is quite consistent with stuff other people write about.
It should, at least in principle, be possible to address the relative merits of polling methodologies objectively, and people like Silver, and Andrew Gelman too (see his blog, in particular the xbox poststratification paper and the more recent differential nonresponse paper discussions), seem to be trying to do just that. But anyone professionally studying polls is going to have some kind of a dog in the fight, in the end. It seems hard to conclude anything based only on that.
