Thanks for taking off my previous comment it looked awful. It was also rife with mistakes.
My point was that there are more than 9 polls that has been added to Clintons poll averages without them being added to Obamas.
It is even worst for Edwards who for a long time did not have a poll added to his averages for more a month or so.
I am refering to poll averages on real clear politics which I call real foggy politics. It is also the averages against Guiliani that I have noticed this extensive unfairness.
Zhonni: Thanks for taking off my previous comment it looked awful.
In order to scrutinize the business of scientific
polling, you are going to undertake your own
very unscientific poll.
In order to understand the accuracy of polls,
you are going to ask the people being polled
who understand nothing about the subject of
poll accuracy.
I am glad they do not conduct drug testing this
way. Ask a non-random sample of patients if
they think the drug is effective. Drug
companies have been sued over much better run
studies than that.
ssg13565: Do I understand this correctly? In order to scrutinize the
Thank you Ms. Huffington. These "National Polls" are bunk. Thank goodness the internet and text messaging have brought to question the validity of the guns-for-hire polling companies.
Pdubya: Thank you Ms. Huffington. These "National Polls" are bunk. Thank
Loading comments… 
First Posted: 03/28/08 03:45 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 01:20 PM ET