The reason why we're around 7%?

[yaz]

http://forthardknox.com/2007/11/03/is-ron-pauls-voice-pitch-too-high/

[priest_of_syrinx]

This supports Winston Churchill's quote:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

[therealjjj77]

Let me give the reason why these "scientific polls" are actually not so scientific.

The pollers only survey Republicans who voted in 2006 and classify them as "likely caucus goers". Well, if you look back at 2006 about the only people who voted Republican were those who were deceived by the media to fully support this war in Iraq and this war on terror. 2006 was a very bad year for Republicans. As GOP chairman Michael Steele put it, we lost over 2,000 positions around America to the Democrats that year. That tells you just how disenchanted the party was and is. However, there will be a significant amount of caucus goers who were not classified as "likely caucus goers" and therefore not included in these "scientific polls". They are Republicans who didn't vote that year, Democrats who support Ron Paul and are switching to Republican, independents who support Ron Paul and are switching to Republican, and the small percent of those who voted that year and have since changed their mind about the war.

Add that all up and we have a landslide candidate. Why? Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and on down the line do not have ANY switch overs to the Republican party from other parties and very few of the disenchanted Republicans from 2006 and so they are only winning a very minor amount of who will actually be attending the caucuses in 2008. And they are even losing that group slowly but surely to Ron Paul. The deck is in our favor.

[SeanEdwards]

Yeah. I think a large number of people are looking to elect a daddy, not a president.

Man I hate people. :D