Nate Silver is jumping with both feet into the criticism of Atlanta-based Strategic Vision, which often releases Florida polls: There is a substantial possibility -- far from a certainty -- that much of Strategic Vision's polling over the past several years has been forged.

I recognize the gravity of this claim. I've accused pollsters -- deservedly I think in most cases -- of all and sundry types of incompetence and bias. But that is all garden-variety stuff, as compared against the possibility that a prominent polling firm is making up numbers whole cloth.

I would emphasize, however, that at this stage, all of this represents circumstantial evidence. We are discussing a possibility. If we're keeping score, it's a possibility that I would never have thought to look into if Strategic Vision had been more professional about their disclosure standards. And if we're being frank, it's a possibility that might actually be a probability. But it's only that. A possibility. An hypothesis -- as yet unproven.

David E. Johnson of Strategic Vision (not to be confused w former Florida GOP executive Director David Johnson) categorically denied the allegation and suggested legal action may be looming. Here's Johnson's statement:

First in regards to the AAPOR charges that started this blog thread.  Strategic Vision did comply and provide the information to AAPOR and has electronic proof that this was done on June 19th.  We did this
because they claimed a complaint has been filed against us and they were investigating us, even though we have never been a member of their organization.  We were then contacted by AAPOR and told that while they had requested this it was not done in a timely enough fashion so they were going to issue a press release reprimanding us.  Please remember again we are not members of their association.  At no time did they request additional information as they now allege they had.  Had they done so we would have
provided them the information.  Rather as I stated we were told we were going to be reprimanded by AAPOR despite responding to them.  We have requested from them repeatedly since this investigation is all about transparency according to them, a copy of the complaint.  They have refused and stated their bylaws donot require them to show us the complaint but we must respond to them or be rep rimanded.  Further several members of this panel that voted to investigate us serve as consultants for one of our competitors and indeed contacted a client several days prior to this being released telling our client that they should switch to the company they consult for.

Secondly in regards to Nate Silver's statements, we categorically deny them and will refute them.  We have a call into our attorney on this and fully intend to take action that will vindicate us.  I wish Nate had contacted me directly yesterday when he began this tirade, I could have answered his questions fully to his
satisfaction prior to damage being done to our reputation.  Now that he has made these accusations and posted them online, I must and will defend our company's reputation through all legal avenues available.  The reason that we are going the legal route is he has attempted to do severe damage to our reputation and what is he going to do when we disprove him just say I am sorry.  That isn't enough at this point.