[SoConPubbie]

I must respectfully disagree. In the last several elections we've been treated to a number of analysts, notably Nate Silver, who used polls, and specifically poll averaging to predict results and their predictions have been very accurate.

Jack, re-read what I posted to you.

List far out, polls are historically inaccurate.

Want more proof?

How about all the polls that stated that Rudy would win, 1+ years out from the primaries?

How about the polls that had Romney winning the election a couple months out from the election.

Polls are more accurate in the time frame of a month before the event.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Added to which, at this point in the last two contests, the eventual winner of Iowa (Huckabee and then Santorum) was polling in the range that Jack claims won't finish in the top 3.

[Jack Black]

Nate Silver *never* had Romney winning the election. Neither did Dr. Wong.

But I agree, you can't accurately predict winners this far out, but you can accurately show who is totally failing to gain momentum.

For any of these laggards to remain in the race their numbers will need to start picking up significantly. I just don't see that, there are too many more qualified candidates in the top tier (including Cruz) who they will migrate to. When you (Mr. Average Voter) decide that your devotion to Candidate 2% is futile, you aren't going to go to candidate 3%, you'll go to a Jeb, Walker or someone else who looks viable.

Bachman, Huntsman, Perry were in this category last time.