[trisham]

I don't even answer a lot of the time even when I know who it is.
That being said, online polls need to be viewed cautiously because they are almost impossible to control. Ron Paul always did far better in online polls than he did in actual votes.

**************************

Good point. I remember that.

[wagglebee]

How many hundreds (probably thousands) of "FReep this poll" threads have you seen here? They can be skewed very easily.

The reality is that nationwide polls are MEANINGLESS at this stage. The ONLY polls that matter are Iowa and New Hampshire because the momentum can change instantly based on who wins those early states.

At this point in 2004, Howard Dean was the clear front runner for the Democrats and Dick Gephardt was solidly in second place. John Kerry's campaign seemed doomed and nobody even paid any attention to John Edwards. Kerry and Edwards both surged in the week before the Iowa Caucus and Dean and Gephardt were done.

Almost every nominee in recent history has won either Iowa or New Hampshire or both. Money evaporates for candidates who don't at least finish in the top two or three in those states. Keep in mind that Donald Trump has said something to the effect that some of his best investments were the ones he didn't make; I don't think he will continue to spend money if he starts to lose momentum.

Now, none of this is to say that I don't think Trump will be the nominee, but it is to say that nationwide polls (especially online polls) don't mean much at this stage of the game.