Romney Moving Ahead in South Carolina Too?

[Scary_Tiger]

Hey iron81, you responded in fewer words to the same claims I didn't make.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey DVaut1, you posted a lot of words, but you responded to lots of things I didn't claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not claiming anything that makes sense, stands to reason, or comports with the mountains of empirical evidence about polling and its accuracy. "Paul supporters will show up at 15%" while "Giuliani supporters will show up at 8%" is just nonsensical. I'm not sure what you're trying to claim, but then again, I suspect you don't know what the hell it is you're trying to claim either.

One more time, so there's no confusion:


"I don't think Paul's support is under measured by polling techniques. I do think his support is more likely to vote. Not in a Lew Rockwell, 5% will win everything kind of way, but if Giuliani is polling at 24% and Paul is polling at 16%, Paul is going to win pretty much every time."

Again, nonsense. Reputable polls are already measuring who is and isn't likely to vote, which is why they get paid lots of money to do what they do; and it's why candidates, the media, academic journals, etc. don't go looking for delusional internet posters for this kind of information. You can go find the DemocraticUnderground message board archives (or your favorite left-wing stomping ground) in 2004 for plenty of dumbass Democrats saying "zomg but the polls miss out on black people/hispanics/young people without landline phones/disenfranchised voters, Kerry's support is actually 10% higher than the pre-election polls say" and "the anti-war vote is rabid and they're much more likely to show up than people who want to maintain the status quo in Iraq, therefore Kerry's pre-election poll numbers aren't an accurate measure of who will show up" -- and they were as delusional and wrong as the Paulbots are now.