They might. Since posting I've been told the original poll was good . . . and that what it was reporting on was percentages of registered Repugs who regarded each of the three as a viable candidate; in that context it's perfectly sensible to have a total over 100%, because of course many people, especially those undergoing treatment, will regard two or all three as viable candidates. Unfortunately, FAUX seemingly "interpreted" these results a little before presenting them to their audience.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-11-24 05:38 am (UTC)They might. Since posting I've been told the original poll was good . . . and that what it was reporting on was percentages of registered Repugs who regarded each of the three as a viable candidate; in that context it's perfectly sensible to have a total over 100%, because of course many people, especially those undergoing treatment, will regard two or all three as viable candidates. Unfortunately, FAUX seemingly "interpreted" these results a little before presenting them to their audience.