Throw out the numbers and what you got is most of the polls still reporting Obama ahead.
Regardless, you have absolutely no basis on which to declare any of these polls biased except that they don't come out the way you want.
<<<...Throw out the numbers and what you got is most of the polls still reporting Obama ahead....>>>________________________________
jhpm wanted to toss the polls that gave Obama an average of 3 points up. So I said, take the spreads away and the number of polls showing Obama ahead is greater than the number showing Romney ahead.
In short, you can cherry-pick any number of ways.
" You are exactly correct. Ever get graded on a "bell curve"? If you were born between the years 1952 and now (was that Horace Mann?), you have been graded on a bell curve.
And yes statisticians can easily manipulate the data to make the poll be whatever outcome they want it to be. "
Gaussian distribution has absolutely nothing to do with cherrypicking data. Pollsters manipulate "data" by using different connotations when asking the questions. If you're reporting a simple statistic such as:
Yes? No? Undecided?
with a margin of error, the statistician cannot manipulate it without simply misquoting the statistic. The statistic may have been manipulated to begin with by asking a loaded question, but once the question is asked, you cannot really change the result if it's a simple question (though combining questions with interests groups to find "trends" can lead to manipulation). In any case, a bell curve has no relevance on anything other than the margin of error.
This is why I'm glad I don't live in the south anymore.
Too many ignorant backwater hicks