Replies

If what you say is true, how is it that Sarah Palin isn't in first place in every poll, scientific, or otherwise? You can't have it both ways. Either Palin's supporters are "spamming" every poll with her name in it, or they are not. Which is it?

What? Palin isn't currently leading in any scientific poll at all. Because her supporters spam an online poll means nothing. Some online polls will be spammed by paulbots, some by supporters of other candidates. No online, unscientific poll means anything.

You posted the results of some garbage unscientific NR poll that is easily spammed and are still trying to defend it. That was not a scientific poll at all, in fact no online polls are actually useful in gauging real popular opinion. Further, I've seen the results of that completely unscientific poll spammed by Palin supporters on other sites too - almost word for word with the way your arguing on its behalf here.

First of all, I don't accept your premise of what's scientific, and what is not. It's been proven time and again on this site that so-called "scientific" polls are routinely massaged and manipulated in such a way, as to produce a desired result. That's a fact, and takes the air out of your theory, which is what you're apparently basing your entire opinion of Palin on.

You can dispute it all your want, but taking all poll results together you can get a pretty good picture of what and who the public supports. Almost all polls are showing Perry leading as the GOP front runner, so it is likely Perry is leading. Almost all polls show Palin has very high negatives and most Republicans do not want her to run. One poll you can dismiss, but taken together they can give you a pretty good idea of what is going on.

Dismissing polls is what people do when they don't like the results.

As for your casual disregard for every other observable metric for measuring a candidate's popularity, that's simply your attempt to fend off other forms of measurable data that threaten to put the lie to your assertions.

The fanaticism of a politicians followers is simply not a good metric of whether that person has broad appeal or is particularly popular over all. If it were, Ron Paul would be well on his way to being our next President, but we know that isn't true at all.