Supporters have been positing this long before there was any article on this to provide “evidence” to a belief held before the “evidence” was provided - which leads to a situation where this has been the belief supporting the proof rather than the other way around.
It is akin to “confirmation bias” on polls and polling....
Why, then, do you suppose 0% Lindsay Graham is still in the race?
And Perry?
And Pataki?
The bit, in that link, about the superpac funding changes is eye opening and explains how candidates who have no money can still stay in the race.
What possibly other purpose could that indicate? Why should someone with 0% polling. week on week, and NO MONEY stay in a race for president?