It's great that the Dr. is showing his teeth so to speak, like in the Fox interview this morning. I'd like him to attack the validity of these polls they keep citing. Something like this exchange:
Reporter: Boy you raised all this money, but you're still only polling at 4%
Ron Paul: So you have one indicator which is "scientific" based off of a sample, that indicates I have hardly any support, and then you have another indicator, namely donations, which is a "real" measure of support -- which by the way continues to rise. So am I to listen to the poll indicator or the indicator of donations?
...or i'd like this response even more:
Ron Paul: Ok Wolf, I'll make a deal with you. If I really only get 4% of the votes in Iowa, then I'll resign my campaign, BUT if I get more support than what these polls show, will you resign from CNN?
...this is sort of like the exchange made with George Step.
Reporter: Boy you raised all this money, but you're still only polling at 4%
Ron Paul: So you have one indicator which is "scientific" based off of a sample, that indicates I have hardly any support, and then you have another indicator, namely donations, which is a "real" measure of support -- which by the way continues to rise. So am I to listen to the poll indicator or the indicator of donations?
...or i'd like this response even more:
Ron Paul: Ok Wolf, I'll make a deal with you. If I really only get 4% of the votes in Iowa, then I'll resign my campaign, BUT if I get more support than what these polls show, will you resign from CNN?
...this is sort of like the exchange made with George Step.