In a post-election statement whose purpose seemed to be to explain why Gallup was wrong about the election outcome, Gallup editor-in-chief Frank Newport included what can only be interpreted as a dig at the New York Times‘ Nate Silver and predicted analyses like Silver’s could result in less polling in future cycles:
It’s not easy nor cheap to conduct traditional random sample polls. It’s much easier, cheaper, and mostly less risky to focus on aggregating and analyzing others’ polls. Organizations that traditionally go to the expense and effort to conduct individual polls could, in theory, decide to put their efforts into aggregation and statistical analyses of other people’s polls in the next election cycle and cut out their own polling. If many organizations make this seemingly rational decision, we could quickly be in a situation in which there are fewer and fewer polls left to aggregate and put into statistical models. Many individual rational decisions could result in a loss for the collective interest of those interested in public opinion. This will develop into a significant issue for the industry going forward.
For his part, Nate Silver identified Gallup as one of the worst polling firms of the election, calculating their polls to have been biased towards Mitt Romney by 7.2% on average.