researched it first before you posted it. Duh..

As I said elsewhere on this thread, NATE SILVER himself includes this pollster, so it's become part of the dialogue out there that affects the polling averages.

insulting and childish.

but that's the way of the world. I'm still going to use 'Duh' whether you think it childish or not. When you pay my bills then maybe just maybe I will care about how you feel about a silly ass word called 'Duh'.

you've confused Democratic Underground with the comment sections on YouTube.

are better at finding info that others.

They are a mess and just ignore them. They must like putting out the worst polls of all time because no one takes them seriously, except maybe a few wingnuts. I think one of the guys has voted for Dems and Repubs and then claims to be a Dem. It's nonsense.

Nate Silver takes them apart here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/aug-27-michigan-isnt-a-tossup/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Their methodology is laughable. Undercounts minorities and voters under 50.

Is it because of the 'don't ignore any data' rule?

And his model still gives MI to O, and still will tomorrow.

Even averaging in plus R 1 MI poll in the mix.

Thanks for finding this!

So they end up affecting the averages.

They're ridiculously off.

couldn't find much.

Nate Silver comments about their polling and their house effect when they released a similarly weird Florida poll:

With all that said, we still include the poll in our forecast model. (I’ve noticed that some other polling aggregation Web sites have not listed the Foster McCollum White Baydoun survey, although I’m not sure if that’s an intentional or unintentional oversight.)

It’s probably a defensible call either way, but our view is that we’d rather deal with “weird” polls in a systemic way rather than having to make an editorial judgment about them.

For instance, we have our house effects adjustment, which corrects for most of these tendencies. Based on this poll, and a prior survey the firm conducted in Michigan, we calculate the firm’s house effect as leaning Republican by roughly 11 percentage points relative to the overall consensus.

We do not subtract out the entire 11-point house effect from the polling firm’s results — the model allows polling firms to retain some of their house effect — but the model does adjust the poll substantially, treating it as about a 7-point lead for Mr. Romney rather than a 15-point one. That’s still a very good number for Mr. Romney — enough to make him a slight favorite in our forecast for the state — but at least a little bit more reasonable relative to common sense.

PPP's poll has blacks making up 16% of the electorate, Baydoun/Foster has it at 8%

Which calls the PPP result into question as well.

Luckily... Halfway between +6 and -1 still isn't a concern.