Well, Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report didn't actually say that. But in an online chat at WashingtonPost.com, he urged poll watchers to adopt certain part of my methodology.
Unrelated to your question, my advice to people is to not pay too much attention to any one poll, there is a temptation to cherry pick, to focus on the one or two polls that tell you what you want to see happen the most, and ignore all others as methodologically flawed. I would look at the averages of polls that are published in various places, an average of many polls is most likely to give you a truer picture than any one.My top line national numbers are averages of each week's polls (I weight likely voter polls more heavily, but don't through out registered voter polls. I average the state polls too, and to prevent a single poll from having to much impact on a state's designation, I weight it against earlier polls.
Averages are always better, just stick to polls that are done over the telephone (NOT internet) and conducted by real live people, not "push #1 for Bush, #2 for Kerry...) like Rasmussen or Survey USA. They have no idea of they are interviewing nine years old or not.Yes, I use Rasmussen's survey, but I have reduced it's weight relative to other pollsters, and I don't use Zogby's "interactive" internet state polling. I do use SurveyUSA's state polling - and SurveyUSA had a really good track record in 2002. But it's only one of many state polling firms that are getting their numbers into my analysis, unlike some sites like Electoral-Vote.com, which only gives you the very last result released, despite how far off from other polling it may be.
