MI: Public Policy Polling: "Not a Swing State"

[Seriously?]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.  I don't think MI is a swing state.  

Fairly large house effect? This isn't even a straight independent PPP Poll. It's a PPP poll for some "progressive" PAC called Health Care Action Now. The "cross tabs" include percentages, but not raw numbers. There's a reason none of these PPP/HCAN  have crept into the RCP average.

Look, at the end of the day, Obama should win Michigan. But I am shocked with the stock put in this pollster from the folks on this board given the fact that it's not an independent poll.

[Seriously?]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

MO, NC argue differently. 

These PPP polls are sauced. They have to be to make the client happy.

For the most part, they are at the outer range of the Obama turnout model. I know I am going to get flack from the PPP-loving peanut gallery, however, I challenge them to point me to the portion of poll methodology where PPP in this instance hasn't adjusted for Party ID.

[Seriously?]

I am to the point where I think PPP has a fairly large Democratic house effect.

Not really, PPP's results continue to be line with those of all other quality pollsters.

MO, NC argue differently. 

These PPP polls are sauced. They have to be to make the client happy.

For the most part, they are at the outer range of the Obama turnout model. I know I am going to get flack from the PPP-loving peanut gallery, however, I challenge them to point me to the portion of poll methodology where PPP in this instance hasn't adjusted for Party ID.

Your syntax is a little unclear here, but I'm guessing that you're suggesting that the Party ID numbers here are too D-friendly, and could only be the result of a deliberate weighting.
One of the questions I'd have  here, is why a partisan poll would want to inflate numbers just days before an election. Wouldn't that have the effect of discouraging turnout? It seems to me that a partisan Democratic poll of Michigan right now, would actually say that Obama was ahead by 3 -- enough to make it seem like he can still win, but not so much as to breed complacency.

Simply: To combat the narrative that this wave toward Romney is occurring in states like Michigan. The tidal wave narrative is a bad one because enough momentum can be built up where states start to snowball out of control for Obama if the perception is that the tide has turned and a Romney victory is inevitable.

Instead, you show that the wave has been knocked down to size.

Democrats don't need to ramp up turnout in Michigan. Obama should win it either way.

[Seriously?]

An 8-point lead is good news for Obama, bad for Romney. (Even if you believe PPP is a hackish pollster with a huge house effect, [insert Cliffy opinion here], [insert Dirks non-sense here]...) Romney won't win here, so he'd better spend his money in other swing states.
End of the story.

I never said Obama wasn't going to win in Michigan. It would be foolish to suggest otherwise.

With that said, there is a legitimate gripe against the PPP/HCAN polls in that they are polls done for a PAC and should be treated as such. That's merely my point here.