Please read more carefully. I never said he had a chance of winning the Presidency. I said he's the only one who's worth a chance at being President. The two statements aren't even semantically close.
Your point was that if something that hadn't happened before (a brokered convention) happened, Ron Paul wouldn't be the nominee. Ron Paul won't be the nominee regardless of whether the convention is brokered or not. But what you said hasn't happened before – a brokered convention – has happened before.
I haven't -- and won't -- for two reasons: (a) because I don't particularly care for political polls (having taken postgraduate level statistics courses, I've learned to be very skeptical of polls in general; experience has taught me to be very careful on polls on particular); and (b) because the American electorate is fickle and unpredictable. They behave like a dainty dandelion, floating in the gentle breeze. Sometimes the wind is Rick Perry, other times it's Newt Gingrich, other times it's Rick Santorum, other times it's Mitt Romney, other times it's Michelle Bachmann and other times it's the result of the draft from a passing pizza delivery vehicle.
As for the comment about the strong finish, I wasn't referring to delegates. I was referring to a respectable showing in terms of capturing a noteworthy percentage of votes cast. Such a showing could serve as evidence the Republicans that there's more to a platform than primal screams of "WE MUST REGULATE COCKS AND ASSES!" and "JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!"
[Update: tone down a part that was unnecessarily insulting to Beach Bum.]
Ok. I reread more carefully. I have no idea what you mean by "worth a chance at being president." If you're talking about electability, I disagree. If you're talking about ideological purity, I still disagree. He's a politician. More honest than most, but still a politician. I don't trust any of them.
If you're quibbling about whether 64 years ago is considered "modern history," then you win.
I have not taken postgraduate level statistics, but I've been following politics for a long time. Polls are first and foremost useful discussion pieces. Secondly, they are fairly accurate predictors. For example, you rarely see someone polling in fourth place by a large margin before the election pull out a victory, unless the voting population is relatively small.
The polls leading up to every primary and caucus this year have been very accurate.
I seriously doubt Ron Paul will capture a sizable percentage of votes in California. He did not fare well in 2008 and will likely finish last this year. In Texas, the fact he could finish last in his home state speaks volumes. Newt won his "home" state. Romney won his. Santorum will probably win Pa. Ron Paul just doesn't have a large enough following to make any long-lasting statement IMO.
I haven't heard the primal screams you're talking about. The frontrunner (Romney) is talking primarily about the economy. As in most presidential elections, the economy, defense, and taxes are the most important issues on the table.
