Greenwald beats us to it.

We were going to post about how fringe and nutty and partisan Putz's readers are, in light of his recent online poll, but the always razor-sharp Greenwald got there first.

A couple of days ago, Glenn Reynolds conducted a poll of his readers, asking them to vote on whether they want (a) Republicans to control both houses of Congress; (b) Republicans to lose one house; or (c) Democrats to control both houses. These are the results:

Republicans keep both houses - 78%
Republicans lose one house - 14%
Democrats take both houses - 8 %

Almost 80% of his readers want Republicans to maintain full control over the Congress. Compare those results to virtually any poll released over the last three months -- or even over the last year -- and it becomes quite apparent what a small minority these right-wing pundits and bloggers represent.

Indeed. But this also begs a rather vexing question, GG. Why does a "non-partisan libertarian" like Putz have such a ravenously partisan, wingtard readership?

Greenwald's update contains this gem from Putz's BFF Hugh Hewitt.

How do Bush followers respond to this onslaught of data? With the same methods they used for several years (and still do) to pretend that things were going "remarkably well" in Iraq -- namely, by simply refusing to accept facts and insisting that they are the by-product of liberal bias. From Hugh Hewitt:

I get a lot of e-mail asking me why I point to polls like the one favoring Steele when I discount some polls favoring some Democrats.

Because this question comes mostly from lefties, I will pause to explain in as uncomplicated a fashion as possible.

Polling methodology and models favors Democrats.

So polls that show Republicans tied or ahead I see as indicating a race in which the Republican is in the lead.

Polls that show a Republican within striking distance I see as a poll indicating a dead heat.

It shouldn't be that hard to grasp, even for a lefty.

That is the mindest that has been running our country for six years now. That is how we heard for so long that violence in Iraq was wildly overstated by a Bush-hating media that exaggerated the bombings and the kidnappings and failed to report on the much more significant stories of all the school houses that were being painted and the candy dispensed by Marines to smiling Iraqi kids.

Yep. That pretty much sums up Putz's arguments, verbatim. Expect more childish personal attacks from Putz directed at Greenwald.