Republican Presidential Candidate George Pataki Is Polling at Five Percent Among Likely Pataki Voters

Unfortunately for Donald Trump, his most recent verbal attack on women only pushed his poll numbers up by a few points. However, there are far more offensive and misogynistic things yet to be said. And he'll say them. And that should boost his popularity among likely Republican voters.

But while Trump continues to surge, I'm also interested in the Republican primary field lightweights. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is currently polling at 0.0 percent- three tenths of a point lower than Sean Hannity's college GPA.

Polls have a margin of error of a couple of points, which means, theoretically, Jim Gilmore could be polling at less than zero. Of the millions of Republican Party voters, less than none of them want Jim Gilmore to represent their party. That sort of describes my social life in Middle School.

Gilmore didn't make much of an impact on the first Republican early debate. Did you notice the boom mic operator standing near the candidates? That was Jim Gilmore. Some people have the personality to command a room. Gilmore couldn't command a room if he was the only one in it. If Jim Gilmore was standing next to a beige-colored wall, your attention would be focused on the beige.

My theory is that Gilmore formed a Presidential Exploratory Committee made up of small children, whom he bribed with candy in exchange for urging him to run for President. Either that or this is the same Presidential Exploratory Committee that urged George Lucas to write Jar Jar Binks into the screenplay.

George Pataki is polling at less than one percent. And, according to post-debate polling, only one percent of viewers thought that Pataki "won" his debate. Similarly, after mixed martial artist Ronda Rousey decimated her last opponent in twenty seconds, about one percent of the audience felt that her opponent won the fight. The more popular candidates did not participate in that early debate. Hence, of the tiny percentage of people who were leaning towards Pataki, only a tiny percentage of those people liked what he had to say. The polls didn't specify who those people were, but I suspect it was a combination of Pataki's family, confused dogs, and viewers who were watching TV at an awkward angle so that Pataki was the only one on the screen they could see.

During the 1990s, Pataki was picked from obscurity to run for Governor of New York. He won the race, and then proceeded to serve three consecutive terms in obscurity.

While tiny New York State isn't the political kingmaker of, say, a Nebraska or Puerto Rico or West Dakota, it's still populated enough so that a three-term Governor should receive a little buzz upon announcing his Presidential candidacy. That Pataki's complete lack of charisma, likeability, or political savvy supersedes this logic is impressive in an opposite sort of way.

I lived in New York State (we're not just New York City, by the way) during George Pataki's reign as Governor. There's only one thing I remember about his time in office- constant self-promotion. I'm not opposed to spending tax dollars on promoting NYS tourism or on marketing our business opportunities. But why the hell was bland, boring George Pataki in all the commercials?! Nobody wants to see George Pataki. It's like trying to get people to see Jurassic World by pushing the lame love story. We want to see the freakin' dinosaurs. Remember the scene where the T-Rex eats the goat? Pataki was the goat.

As Governor, George Pataki spent millions of dollars of other people's money to advertise himself. Oh, technically the commercials were about New York's health care plan or the MTA Metrocard. But Pataki always managed to put himself in a few scenes. He was like the "Flo from Progressive Insurance" of politics... but even more annoying. Well, just as annoying. Well, almost as annoying. Well... Flo's really annoying.

And this is what's so bothersome about the Republican Presidential losers... I mean candidates. There's certainly nothing wrong with an underdog running for President. America boasts a long list of political success stories who started out as unknowns. And even if you don't get a lot of votes, there's something honorable about putting yourself on the line for a cause. But Tim Gilmore and George Pataki don't have a cause; rather, they're compassionate about using debate airtime to get a talk show on FOX News or to pick up speaking gigs on Tea Party cruises. Wait- is it Tim or Jim? I've already forgotten.

Other low-polling Republican candidates, like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, are basically making a career out of running for President. They're never going to win. They know they're never going to win. But running for President is a fantastic, economically-smart way of promoting oneself. It doesn't cost the candidates any money to get interviewed by Megyn Kelly.

The problem, though, is that you're not supposed to run for President as a way of promoting yourself. That's what shirtless Instagram pics are for.

If you want to promote your new book, go on Good Morning America. Don't run for President. You're wasting people's votes.

Donald Trump's message is absurd. But at least he does have a message. (If you told me, several months ago, that political pundits on television would be analyzing and dissecting "building a border wall and making Mexico pay for it" as a legitimate political policy, I would have thought you were insane. Unfortunately, I also would have thought it sounded about right. Society is idiotic.) Plus, Trump truly believes he is going to win. Heck, if you put Donald Trump in a boxing ring with Ronda Rousey, he would truly believe he is going to win. Actually, I'd like to see that.

During the next debate, the moderators should ask Jim Gilmore and George Pataki and Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum two important questions. Why are you running for President? And why are you really running for President?