I follow it pretty closely, because I do appreciate the basic methodological things they're doing, and they're still worth doing. They do spend quite a lot of time and work on things like adjusting polls for age, house effect, trends, etc., which I appreciate, because it's a lot better than eyeballing the latest batch of polls.
I do take their more editorial analysis with a grain of salt, and unfortunately it seems like they often write to their hopes and/or audience. Their analysis of social issues is often especially guilty of this. It's sometimes basically advocacy journalism with a lot of numbers, which has a place, but it's not why I've liked the site in the past. I do actually think that their analysis of the General Election gets to much crap -- they overestimated the application of history to this year's primary, but the General Election probably is a lot more predictable. Still, more of a grain of salt there than in the past, too.
I do think it's funny that Harry Enten once said he doesn't vote, because he's worried it will cause him to get too emotionally attached to given outcomes, and yet he's clearly very, very emotionally attached to an outcome anyway. Smart guy, funny, still often enjoy his stuff, but that's pretty damn absurd.
I think that has more to do with getting sick/burnt out of politics, which, given his profession, isn't an option
