As usual, you have distorted the picture somewhat with half-truths and innacuracies. To begin with, as the linked article opens with, there is no obvious favourite successor candidate, as even Medvedev ranks on a par with Zhirinovksy. If you then take into account any margin error (from as little as 2%), Sergei Ivanov and Gennady Zyuganov are also on a par with Zhirinovksy. Furthermore, if you consider that only one of either Medvedev or Ivanov is likely to be a real candidate for the presidency, the Zhirinovsky vote, which has predominantly manifested itself as a protest vote, is paled even further.
Again, even this is hardly the most noteworthy aspect of the story. You have failed to highlight an even more significant fact, which is that 35% of respondents expressed an unwillingness to vote for any of the proposed candidates, suggesting that the sympathy for the Nazi ideology that you imply exist among the Russians is not quite as you describe it.
More detailed data is available at the Levada Centre's own site, which carries more fascinating insights on the choices that face the Russian electorate. Foremost among these is that 51% of respondents believe that the polls will not be truly competitive but that they will be made to appear so. Only 33% of respondents really believe the elections will be competitive.

So, let me see if I have this straight: If the top two vote-getters in a U.S. poll for president in 2008 were Dick Cheney and the Grand Wizard of the KKK, with everybody else far behind, you'd say just the same thing, right?

As if, dude. Get real. He's a maniac, and he's at the top of the list. Spin it anyway your sick propagandistic head likes, it comes out just as disgusting.

Russians freely elected a proud KGB spy, there's nothing the least bit suprising about this poll, except to someone with his head in a dark place it shouldn't be.

I thought you didn't like bringing American into the debate. Isn't this the RUSSOphobe site.
Again, you intentionally manipulate or entirely ignore the facts upon which your original post was based. To begin with, as I very carefully explained, so that even you could not misunderstand, there are not "two top vote-getters", as Zyuganov and Ivanov would also be leading the polls if you concede for a maximum 2% margin error. Among other things, this reflects the fact that like most countries in the world, for all that Russia may not be a fully functioning democracy, there is some semblance of plurality, unlike the United States, where one is nowadays compelled to choose between two identikit candidates.
You are right, however, to say that there is nothing surprising about the polls. It is equally unsurprising that you have selectively twisted the facts to indicate something they do not actually reveal. At any rate, the question is entirely academic as it is far from clear that Zhirinovsky would even want to stand for the election, which he refrained from doing in 2004. The LDPR candidate that did stand, Oleg Malyshkin, only garnered 2% of the vote in the event, in spite of being endorsed by Zhirinovsky.
The conclusion of all this, which you could only miss by trying, is that the poll figures do not suggest that the Russians will choose Zhirinovsky or any such politician as their president for that matter.

I don't, but on occasion I do like showing you for a fool :). So when you stop, I'll stop. Isn't it interesting that now it's YOU who wants to forget all about America? WHAT A HYPOCRITE!

By the way, you really ought to try to stay up on your current events before you start arguing. As the post has been updated to reflect, the Kremlin is now in the process of abolishing the "against all" option. So you're wrong and "distorted" (and hypocritical) on that too.

You further distort when you mention the margin of error. The poll clearly states that none was given, because like most Russian things this poll is perfectly flawless. ;) What's what more, dear, if there WAS a margin of 2% error it could very well mean that Zhirinovsky should have been 20% and his nearest rival 18% and the two you mention 2% less. Talk about distorting the facts!

La Russophobe has twisted nothing. She has correctly reported that no candidate has a higher voter preference for 2008 than Vladimir Zhirinovsky. If Russia wasn't involved, you'd be outraged, but since it is you apologize. You are, as usual, enabling the rise of the Neo-Soviet Union just like Chamberlain. History has duly recorded your complicity.

By the way, just to emphasize how much you yourself distort and warp the facts in the most laughingly hypocritical manner, you COMPLETELY IGNORE how poorly the liberal candidates like Ryzhkov and Yavlinsky did in the poll, barely registering.

In other words, your propaganda is a classic neo-Soviet joke.

Unsurprisingly, you do not understand what a margin of error means. I must have missed the bit where the poll explicitly says it has no margin of error, as it would be the only poll in the world to make such a claim. Judging from your remarks, you also believe the Levada Centre to be compromised, which makes me wonder why you are using it as your source.
But aside from the semantics of that matter, your original headline was "Russians Zhirinovsky Should Be Next President". Is there any particular reason you failed to mention that by your logic the Russians also want Medvedev to be the next president? Is it perhaps because you wanted to give a false impression of the likely outcome of the next presidential elections.
When you absurdly accuse people right, left and centre of emulating Neville Chamberlain, you are presumbaly doing this in the belief that Zhirinovsky will be the next president. It is good that you are going on record with this prediction, as when you are proved resoundingly wrong even you will have to admit to your own obtuseness.
As to the United States, I have quite clearly illustrated my views on that front. Although the United States are more institutionally democratic than Russia, they are also less pluralistic, effectively offering the voters only two visible candidates and consequently alienating millions upon millions of potential voters. Frankly, the United States offer no great model of procedural democracy to Russia. Lest we forget that when the 1996 elections were grossly manipulated by the Yeltsin administration, the West conveniently turned a blind eye. This is the great example that the West is supposedly meant to be sending to emerging democracies!
Finally, nobody said anything about the "against all" option. The interesting fact about the polls you have relied on for your latest bout of smear tactics is that they reflect the diffidence of the Russian people towards the whole election process. You, meanwhile, attempt to misconstrue this information into the belief that the Russians are Nazis who want to invade Alaska. Now, just how many times were you dropped on the head as a baby?

You're the one who doesn't understand margin of error. Not suprisingly.

Hypocrite.

You said: "You have failed to highlight an even more significant fact, which is that 35% of respondents expressed an unwillingness to vote for any of the proposed candidates"

Then: "nobody said anything about the "against all" option."

If you're going to lie, at least be a little bit more attentive. This is just silly.

Are you playing dumb or what? You can either vote for the "against all" option or not vote at all. 35% of Russians said they did not want to vote for any candidates, so all those options are open to them. But why did you say that that Russia's top preference (not use of the singular) was Zhirinovsky when this is clearly not the case? But you are an arch manipulator of the facts with an agenda is why.

No candidate was more popular than Zhirinovsky. That is why I said he was the top candidate. See? If someobody was more popular, then I wouldn't have said it.

The better question would be, why did you say Zhirinovsky wasn't the most popular when this was clearly not the case? Why did you ignore how emphatically the public rejected all the liberal candidates and ignore the fact that the Kremlin, with no public opposition, was planning to delete the against all option, even while attacking me for overlooking facts?

Apart from the fact that Zhirinovksy may well decide not to stand for the presidential election, which nullifies the description of him as a candidate, he is not the most popular candidate because he has the same amount of support as Medvedev, who you have failed manifestly even to mention.
I would be very surprised you, who deludely believes herself to be some sort of Russia pundit, could give a passable description of any potential liberal candidate's presidential campaign issues, so it is surprising that you expect the Russians to be so au fait with the issues. In the last Duma elections, the SPS' only TV advert showed Chubais, Khakamada and Nemstov having a convivial chat on private jet. While it is true that liberal candidates are denied very much access to the media, aside from Ekho Moskvy and the press, when they do get the chance to put their message across they invariably alienate the majority of Russians. This is one of many explanations for why liberal candidates do not make any headway, but I'll leave it there as I know you are allergic to nuance and complexity.
As for the "against all" issue, people have expressed an unwillingness to vote for any of the candidates. So they will not vote for any of the candidates. Couldn't be simpler, but it still eludes your understanding. The abolition of the against all option in regional votes was a contentious issue, but since even you are clamouring so eagerly for the liberal candidate, it is hard to see why you are complaining that people are being denied the option to specifically vote against all candidates, signifying that while they are engage with the political process, they are not happy to choose any of the candidates on offer.
As it happens, un-democratic but pluralist Russia offers a variety of presidential candidates from far-rightwingers, liberals, leftwingers, nationalists and others. Although the range of candidates in many Western liberal democracies is not so wide, like America say, the offer of voting against all is rarely if ever given. What does say about those democracies? Frankly, nothing.
So, you take completely meaningless facts and bend, distort and misconstrue them into attacks that could objectively be directed at any country. Instead of directing you critical faculties, doddering as they are, to defects in the institutional features of modern Russia and its leaders, you choose instead to seize every (usually inexistent) opportunity to slander the Russian people with your lies, ommissions and misinterpretations.

Whether Zhirinovsky runs or doesn't is totally irrelvant. What's relevant is that in a professional poll no candidate was more popular than he, and that no person expressing strong support for basic democratic values received remotely significant support.

What's relevant is that the Russian people have freely chosen to erect a Neo-Soviet Union, making them fully culpable in the consquences of that decision.

REITH: So far you have not contributed one single shred of value to this blog in terms of offering any research or links to useful information. But this is not to say you add no value at all. By having only offered absurdly childish propaganda and personal invective, for example accusing La Russophobe of "lying" about Zhirinovsky's popularity when she has supported her claim with the appropriate link to data you have not disputed, leaving readers perfectly free to draw their own conclusions, you highlight the utterly vacuous Russophile position and conclusively demonstrate the need for La Russophobe to exist as its antidote. For that, La Russophobe thanks you.

So what are the policies of this liberal group that you are so intensely well-informed about? It would be fascinating to hear what policies you think that they are propounding that you find so compelling. The fact that you haven't chosen to discuss such matters before (nothing positive on the site, for heavens sake!), suggests that you don't have the slightest shred of a clue about what you're talking about.

I never said they were compelling. They simply don't advocate World War III, mass murder and crazed Russian nationalism and dictatorship the way Zhirinovsky does. That's more than good enough for me, but I guess you prefer V.Z. Doesn't suprise me one bit. You are now on record doing so, and history will judge you (if it deigns to notice you).