Reply #64: it is "incredible", as in "not credible"

[foo_bar]

When you throw out data that doesn't support your preordained conclusion, you get something like this:

That's why I stick with Zogby and ARG, etc. I've stopped blindly incoporating the latest poll that Votemaster puts up - unless t makes sense. Call me a cherry-picker. I throw away the bad ones. That's why my numbers seem so far out there for Kerry.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1039319#1041539

No, I leave them out because they are BIASED for Bush.
Why include them if they skew the averages against Kerry?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1998204#1998844

Survey-USA?
Gallup?
Strategic Vision?
Mason-Dixon?

Trust Zogby. Trust ARG.

Don't be bamboozled by Repub pollsters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1022265

There has been misinformation put out by a number of sources
(AP, MSNBC, FOX, CNN) regarding Kerry's current poll numbers
and his prospects of winning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2060158

I have also used this method to calculate the probability that
1- at least 15 JFK witnesses would meet unnatural deaths in the year following the assasination.
2- at least 16 world-class microbiologists would meet unnatural deaths in a 4 month period following 9/11.
3- The probability that at least a certain number of people would suffer from mad cows disease in a specific geographic area in a given year.

In each case, the probabilities were close to zero.

In the 2002 election, the odds are less than 1 out of 43,000 that the results were due to chance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1777401#1777492