Recent polling consistently suggests that McCain is only around 7 points down in Michigan, but is trailing by some 15 points in Pennsylvania. For those who went through a modern western education system, that makes Michigan 8 points more pro-McCain than Pennsylvania is. Surprising, then, that the McCain camp is pouring resources into Pennsylvania, soon after announcing the abandonment of Michigan as a lost cause. What's the reasoning, then?

"We pay attention to our own polls," senior McCain aide Mark Salter is quoted as saying. "Pennsylvania looked much better than Michigan."

 In other words, the  McCain camp is referring to polling data that reads Michigan as being quite a bit more McCain-friendly than mainstream polling does. 

Now, this is kind of interesting. There are really three explanations I can see, and it's hard to pick between them. Firstly, it's possible that Salter is just referring to imaginary polling data (some people call this lying), because the decision to pull out of Michigan and stay in Pennsylvania was not made on any sensible basis at all.

 Secondly, the McCain camp could be using polling methodology that is significantly different to the mainstream polling. They could be asking different questions, or they could be putting their questions to a different, but still somehow representative, population sample. But for this to explain their decision, then not only would their methodology have to skew the results quite drastically, it would have to do so in Michigan but not in Pennsylvania.

The third possibility is that, in referring to  "our polls", Salter really meant that they apply a layer of interpretation to polling data based on other considerations - so by "our polls" he kinda means "our take on the polls", which I guess is a reasonable use of language. This would mean that, when they look at the 7-point margin in Michigan, and the 15-point margin in Pennsylvania, they say to themselves, "ah, but there is an extraneous factor that makes Pennsylvania a much better bet for us; a factor that just doesn't show up in the polls."

Now I have to be honest - I think the first explanation is the most plausible. I think that maybe they recognised pulling out of MI (or at least their announcement of it) as a mistake, and decided not to repeat that mistake in PA. Maybe they are making rash decisions, because they are addled, temperamental, confused, or senile. 

But let's say their "own polls" are not imaginary.  That means they believe they've identified something starkly different about Pennsylvania compared to Michigan, either through actual private polling, or through some interpretive lens they are applying to the polls the rest of us are seeing. Something that makes the polling results misleading, so that voters will go for McCain on election day but not say so to pollsters, and that applies to Pennsylvania but not to Michigan. The only such thing I can think of is the so-called Bradley Effect.

To be clear, I am not saying that I think Pennsylvania is  a more racist place than Michigan. On that question, I have absolutely no idea. But I wonder if maybe McCain's strategists believe exactly this.

Is there some other explanation that has eluded me?