[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Im sure its not the first time youve been in denial. As the primaries get closer and the differences between the votes and the polls come out you'll have the proof you need. Till then, don't leave your head in the sand too long, its bad for the skin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhm... wtf does that have to do with this? I'm not claiming RP's vote total is gonna be high at all. In fact, I'm saying exactly the opposite!!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading comprehension 101. I said "the differences between the votes and the polls " which is precisely what we are talking about "Poll stuffing" by RP fanatics that skew them vs verifiable 1 man 1 vote results. Since you are in denial about it, the only proof that will satisfy you is the actual vote being orders of magnitude lower than the phony poll results. You'll continue to find reasons to dismiss telephone polls, caucus and straw poll results until it becomes undeniable.

[/ QUOTE ]

More and more crazy talk. I dismiss the accuracy of the telephone polls, but if anyone's dismissing the accuracy of straw polls it's you considering that in the Iowa poll the you used earlier to measure Ron's lack of support, he scored 9%, which is higher than what I estimate his current support to be. Then again, by me claiming that Ron's support is less than what the straw polls show, I guess I am dismissing the straw polls! So you're right, I don't think any one source, of all the various sources that all contradict each other, has all the information. Gee, you're brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was 9% without two significant candidates participating. Adjust for that and the straw poll results are right in line with what his actual support is likely to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're dismissing the straw polls. Thanks.

Btw, do you seriously think any McCain or Giulianni supporters are choosing Paul as their 2nd choice? Are you on crack? Their lack of presence helped every other candidate far more than it helped Ron Paul.