Ron Paul Defeats Obama In Head To Head Polling

Tyler Durden's picture

Here's a chart you won't see anywhere in the mainstream media - not the right, and certainly not the left. According to Rasmussen's 2012 Presidential Election Matchups, which pit Obama against any of the four GOP presidential candidates, while the balance of challengers certainly appear to have no chance of defeating the incumbent (something we touched upon yesterday), today, for the first time, Ron Paul has managed to unseat the standing president, by a thin margin of 43 to 41, for the first time in this series.

Source: Rasmussen Reports (premium subscription required)

On the survey methodology: "Surveys covering three days are of 1,500 Likely Voters and Surveys of Two Days are of 1,000 Likely Voters. All Surveys Have a Margin of Error of +/- 3% ."

Some more from today's Rasmussen blog:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).


Just 19% favor increased U.S. involvement in Syria.  The Obama administration receives mixed reviews for handling that situation to date.


On the energy front, 58% believe that free market competition is the best way to get gas prices down. Just 27% think government regulations are a better approach. However, 67% believe that oil companies are using bad news to gouge customers.


In a possible 2012 matchup, Mitt Romney earns 45% of the vote, while the president attracts 44%. If Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads by three, 46% to 43%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern

What is oddly missing is that Ron Paul earns 43% of the vote, to Obama's 41%.

So on one hand Ron Paul defeats the president head to head, and on the other, the GOP itself tells us he is a distant third to two frontrunners who frankly make one question the sanity of every American voter?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Abiotic Oil's picture

The right of a president to use a teleprompter shall not be infringed.

Pry it from his cold dead hands and all that.

shuckster's picture

Syria has a Constitution too 

Harbanger's picture

It's irrelevant, Barry and US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg prefer the South African Constitution over all others.

smlbizman's picture

none of it matters debates, constituiton nothing will ever change and heres why. i will crudely and quickly  try and  asses the problem of why society in any country,  has never and  will never succeed , and i will define" succeed" as a sustainable system with natural growth , trust in people ,sound money and true honest common sense representation for all. this also includes murder, rape, war, etc. so im not implying a utopia by any means. ...however the reason this will never be achieved is because of the structure of mans nature. i believe that the majority of us would like to live under my definition of success..  the problem is the type of man that may  believe in my "succeed" system are by nature live and let live people focused on their lives, not trying to run others lives and respects success..... the  group that "wants" and thats the problem, wants, {thats their nature}, to run things  get split up into 2 groups the... "manipulated"...., who are convinced their rah rah rah i know whats fucking best for the entire planet person,  are used as an army of idiots  by the manipulators. these power people will always have an inherent narcissistic personality. so think of the "wants" as oil and the "succeeders" as water. no matter how many times you shake it ,the oil always settles on top.  i could be wrong...



TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul. This is because their red wing of the War Party is more important to them than the future of the country. They'd rather see a national suicide than relinquish the death grip they have on their ideology.


Cdad's picture

Most in the GOP would gladly forfeit the presidency to the blue wing of the War Party rather than nominate Ron Paul. This is because their red wing of the War Party is more important to them than the future of the country. 

So...when you wrote it because you are captured, apathetic, or just plain fucking stupid?  Really, I'd like to know.  

dasein211's picture

Uh no. It's because he's right. Seriously. Red commies and red capitalists both can't think for themselves.

Cdad's picture

Uh, no...they can think for themselves, within the lazily defined groups the previous poster both are motivated to think via greed.  So my point, for you short bus riders out there, of which there seems to be a bumper crop this evening, is that NO ONE WILL BE WILLINGLY giving up the that is the goose that lays the goldend dumb fuck.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You just fucking nailed it.  Most people base their vote solely upon their own simplistic view of their self-interest.  Think Obama is going to buy you a house which you don't have because you don't make enough money?  Vote D.   Think Romney is going to lower your taxes which you don't like paying because you make good money?  Vote R.  Meanwhile, the whole fucking system is completely corrupt and run by oligarchs who are bankrupting us all.  Go Ron.  I hate him for his fuck the poor guy routine but I love him for his destroy the police state and captured democracy routine.  We need to hit the reset button and he's the only game in town for that.  

I am a Man I am Forty's picture

is it a "fuck the poor guy routine" or is it a poor guy needs to take care of his mother fucking self routine?.....pretty sure it is the latter

LetThemEatRand's picture

Some can, some can't.  Ron doesn't see the difference which is my one big problem with him.   

I am a Man I am Forty's picture

right, but RP would argue that this is what all of these tax free charities are for, church on every corner where I live, there is plenty of help out there for those that are truly in need, not sure how you figure that out unless they are mentally or physically disabled

LetThemEatRand's picture

That works great in small towns.  Not in large cities.   And those who are mentally and physically disabled constitute a huge percentage of our population.   Really.  Alzheimers, strokes, h/as, etc.   Also, a large percentage of people over fifty will never survive if you take away the programs they have been paying into their whole lives.

BoNeSxxx's picture

Primitive cultures routinely floated their non-productive members down the river or left them to the elements.

OK, so we prospered for a time and cared for ours.  Those days are comming to an end.

Austerity measures in Europe have brought us 'euthanasia vans' where they come to your house and help you die a-la Soylent Green.  I kid you not.  If anyone asks, I'll post a link or two... At present they must be prescibed by a doctor but they are being piloted in the UK and Holland.  Sometimes for simple pensioners in mild pain.  Oh, and they can be prescibed WITHOUT patient consent.  

De-evolution or evolution?

Guess it depends on your level of civility.

Cdad's picture

Nice...fucking clutter monkey.  There... my level of civility to you.

BoNeSxxx's picture

Did you forget the /IRONY?

Or, do you have to close your World of WarCraft game to go look up the meaning of irony?

BoNeSxxx's picture

Here is one:

Trying to find the other... too old to remember where I read it.  Guess that means they are coming for me next.

merizobeach's picture

Wonderful.  I love it.  I want to see huge billboards: "Euthanasia: The Noble Choice!" with smiling old folks being wheel-chaired into the clinic by hot, serene nurses.

And put the clinics in every neighborhood, starting with the insufferable yuppies and their emo kids.  No appointment necessary, all ages accepted, optional counseling, disposal, etc.

Get euthanized, bitchez!  >:-D

Acet's picture

You are aware that the Daily Mail is a tabloid, right? These guys are the ones that made up the story that the EU regulates the curvature of bananas - their version of the truth is ... very spiced up.

Getting your news out of the Daily Mail is a bit like reading the "Journal of the Incredible" for stories of three-headed babies, Giant Eti sightings and bearded women.


Acet's picture

Funny, I live in the UK and lived previously in The Netherlands and have friends there and yet never heard of "euthanasia vans" in either country. In fact, a quick search in, in Dutch, didn't pop-up any results.

Yet, somehow you, probably living deep in the US, maybe even unable to point out The Netherlands in a map (much less tell the difference between Holland and The Netherlands) heard of them.

You must either:

  1. Have spectacular connections
  2. Have a series lack of critical abilities and a below average IQ


BoNeSxxx's picture

I lived in Uden

Answer is #1

A quick Google search this morning pulled over a dozen hits by multiple sources (not all as dubious as the Mail).  Did you spell your search terms correctly there genuious?

Stay in your own weight class, I don't want you getting your pretty dress dirty.

Stories like this are seeded.  It's called predictive programming.  Google that.  Or, better yet, read Bernays.

Prometheus418's picture

Charity is great- but enforced altruism is not.

Do you really think that it somehow benefits our society and the human race as a whole if we not only provide for, but actually encourage those who are mentally, physically or morally flawed to breed?  Every dollar that you take from me is a dollar I cannot spend to help those who I feel deserve my help- and in times like these, when food and gasoline costs are skyrocketing, you are actually taking from my children, who are able-bodied and mentally capable to support those who are not.  

While it "feels good" to believe that you are helping others by encouraging this attitude of enforced equality and safety nets for the less fortunate, the reality is that you are stealing from those who can actually produce the information and products required to create a surplus that makes charity possible to create a reverse-eugenic situation that makes more and more people absolutely dependant on a system that produces less each year.

Sometimes Justice is ugly, but it is necessary.  Virtue and productivity must be rewarded, not theivery and scabs, if you want to live in a world that does not resemble a back alley in hell.  There will be wailing and moaning when the SNAP cards stop working and the free shit train stops rolling into town- but people will adjust to their natural levels in time, and they will actually feel better for it.  We've got a lady where I work that got hired for a very low-level position about eight months ago, who had previously been wholely dependant on the system to support herself and her daughter.  She is not intellegent, or in possession of any obvious physical charms- but she shows up every day and does her job.  According to her, even though she no longer receives SNAP benefits, and does not have free health insurance, she is still happier than she has ever been- because she has a purpose and a reason to get up in the morning.

People like you just do your damnedest to steal that simple virtue and reward from people like that.  Very few are willing to give things up to report to work, because they don't understand the fundimental link between having some reason to exist and basic happiness.  Instead, they're constantly given cheap shit bought with money stolen from their neighbors and hooked on mind-altering drugs that fuck up my drinking water.

Let those who will not work die.  Give those who are willing to work something to do, and suppliment that as necessary.  I know you don't agree- but I am not willing to concede that your opinion gives you the right to steal from myself and my family.  This has been pushed to the point that sooner or later, one of us is going to end up danging from a gallows- pray for your children's sake that it is you, and not me.

i-dog's picture


"a dollar I cannot spend to help those who I feel deserve my help"

Therein lies the nub of the problem for the liberals/fabians: Their self-worth is so low that they believe nobody will help them to continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

No matter how many charities there are on their block (there are plenty now - and would be many more if families could return to the days of one working to bring home the bacon, while the spouse is doing voluntary charitable work between dropping the kids at school and picking them up again), the fabians want more than just a helping hand ... they want what you've got.

Acet's picture

The purpose of a so called "social safety net" is to provide a baseline below which people are not allowed to fall.

Other people benefit from this through reduced criminality, better control of contagious diseases, more economic growth (from people who fall on bad times and quickly go back to being productive citizens thanks to that social safety net), the increased social stability that comes from reduced inequality and some people even enjoy the knowledge that nobody will be left behind.

Even without the ethical and moral angles, it is actually positive for everybody in a society to have some kind of "social safety net".

The problem around the "social safety net" is that some of those on it are parasites that relly on it and never try to become productive members of society even though they could. The problem are the parasites, not the "social safety net".


LongBallsShortBrains's picture

How many people who depend on the safety net don't own a television or cellphone? I'll bet most have cable or satellite tv. I bet that at least half eat in a restaurant more than once a month. How many own cars?

We reward laziness and penalize hard work and saving.

Just like the solution to the problem of borrowing too much cannot be achieved by borrowing more. The problems caused by rewarding the non-productive through stealing from the productive cannot be solved by stealing MORE from the productive in order to reward the non-productive.

ESPECIALLY when you consider how many government "jobs" ( which produce NOTHING and cost plenty ) and their associated costs are needed to perpetuate and carry out this madness.

Have we fucked this country up beyond repair yet?

LongBallsShortBrains's picture

P418.. Going out on a limb here assuming you are not from California. Am I right?

They steal from us to take care of the poor and needy is bullshit.

They steal from us in order to give themselves a job, and use the poor and needy as their justification.

Somewhere along the way, driving past somebody and not stopping to feed them, became a bigger crime than stealing money from me to feed them.

The libtards look at this as altruistic, and buy right in.

You and I see it for what it is and so do the scum that perpetuate it.
The irony is:

The people who try to help the "poor" in this way end up making all of us poorer so that they get to keep their job. How altruistic...ahem selfish and greedy. In the long run, this system will fail, and those who collect " gib me dats" are going to suffer much worse than if they had learned a trade besides playing "poor me" to the gubmint.

Those who have saved and learned trades and are able to take care of their family will do very well once this libtard madness ends.

David Wooten's picture

"NO ONE WILL BE WILLINGLY giving up the that is the goose that lays the goldend dumb fuck."

That is not correct.  Much of the GOP hierarchy would rather lose the Presidency than see 'their' party taken over by Paul. 

Cdad's picture

Maybe no one in your life has had the courage to say it to you yet.  Fear not...Cdad is here for you.  You are a MORON if you actually believe what you just wrote.

Self-esteem is NOT something that is learned in a classroom.  It is earned through the trials of life, and failures as well as successes.  You have just FAILED.  Try to learn from it.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You are the one without courage my Red Tribe friend.  Ron Paul would take a LOT of Blue Tribe votes.  He would likely beat the big O in an election.  ORomney may win, but Paul is more likely to win and ORomney won't change much.   I voted for the big O, and whatever change you think you see is coming from talk radio.  Really.

Cdad's picture

What the fuck are you talking about?  You are trying [uselessly] to flame me...while MAKING MY COUNTER POINT!  That is not bright.  Of course you confess that you voted for President Zero, confirming your utter lack of sense.  

Look...I get that some repubs hate RP.  I get it.  My point is...they only hate him so much.  I'll add...RP would probably draw a shocking amount of DEMOCRAT support in the General.

As for RP beating President Zero in an election...we AGREE.  So why you are striking out at is quite a mystery.  I leave you, Scooby, and the Mystery Van to figure out what your actual point is...which is utterly in not apparent within the context of my counter argument.

BTW, I haven't a fucking clue what this means:

ORomney may win, but Paul is more likely to win and ORomney won't change much.

LetThemEatRand's picture

Many in the Red Tribe vote for ORomney because they don't like Paul's anti-war stance, even though they know Paul is more likely to win.  

My vote for O over McCain did not exhibit a lack of sense though I fully admit it was a bad idea.  It was the result of a lack of real choice and I hated McCain more than I hated the version of O sold to me by the media.  They were both equal douches.

Cdad's picture


Rynak's picture

That is the first (to me) reasonable response by you, in this thread. Totally right - don't betray your conscience just because you get offered no better option in a rigged game. Actually, if EVERYTHING ELSE fails, run amok on the bastards, and selfdestruct.

LetThemEatRand's picture

No, I should have voted for someone else.  If we all did that, we would not have this problem.  The obvious problem is douchebags who tell us to pick one of the assclowns on the red or blue ticket, or to go home if we don't like assclowns.

Sophist Economicus's picture

Leave him alone CDAD, he was a VICTIM of the media...LOL, what a shock

LetThemEatRand's picture

Not really a victim of the media.  A victim of not doing enough of my own research to realize that O was part of the same machine that spawned Kissinger.  I made a judgment call that he would be different.  I was wrong.  Fool me once.  P.S.  I voted for Ross Perot over W Sr. and Cigar guy.  

buckethead's picture

LTER is kicking someone's ass, and it isn't mine.

WND links say a mouthful.

Get you some Daily Paul and let Rush go golfing. One month of independent thought can change the world. Give it a try, c.

StychoKiller's picture

So, you ignored yer principles and voted for Obamatron?  No one feels sorry for you.

hamurobby's picture

Not many here can say the last person they voted for president was Ross Perot.

I gave up after that, until Ron Paul.

Rynak's picture

Hint: Party poplitics > politics of party members

And: Lobby influence > party politics.

The D's and R's are owned. Why would one even START running under their flag, besides of being just another puppet? Publicity. That is all.

hamurobby's picture

Number one answer?



Air time on TV. Ron Paul would be on youtube only if he were not in the primaries.

shuckster's picture

Corruption 101 - kill your enemies or make them kill themselves. RP will not take over the Republican Party any more than Franky Three Fingers will get away with not paying Don the Jeweler for that loan he took out on his gambling habbit. This is mafia, NWO style. Calling it anything else is childish

Rynak's picture

Uh, that has little to do with "red", unless you associate "centralized fascism" and in general "ponzi" to the color "red".

Whenever you lazily succumb to associating the current issues with "collectivist" or "individualist".... remember: In the current system, neither most individuals, nor the collective matters... what matters, is the ponzi.

P.S.: Err, after some reading, it may be that there is a bit of "lost in translation here". Background: In most western nations, the color "red" is associated with the hard left.... but at least in USA politics, the association is exactly the other way around.

grid-b-gone's picture

With liberty and freedom comes personal responsibility.

Well-connected chickenhawk R capitalists enjoy the fruits of laws hewn in their favor, while the children of others provide the first line of defense for their families' safety. Their idea of freedom is too often freedom from full-on competition provided by a highly-evolved system that maintains advantages for the entrenched.

On the D. side, the highly-evolved entrenched safety net favors the individual. Its supporting orginizations include unions and public-sector jobs, again favoring safety, stability, and guarantees. Taxpayer realities become irrelevant to fulfilling the promises and institutions like the Federal Reserve delay the need to address reality. Though some public-sector workers perform honorably and at a very high level for their entire careers, seniority allows some to receive standard rewards for average or even sub-par performance.   

Ron Paul confronts the reality that the pendulum for both D. and R. approaches has swung way past equilibrium. He promises only the inconvenience he himself has endured - serving when he could have avoided serving - absorbing Medicare payments in his practice that he could have transferred to the government - voting against overspending when 'being a team player' would have been much easier.

A Ron Paul presidency means our children will have to compete more equally against groups and countries that were not a significant factor, or were not allowed to be a significant factor, during the previous century.

Equality, liberty, and freedom are not exactly siren songs to the average, and certainly not to the advantaged. Working harder, smarter, and longer as equals to preserve these United States is easily dismissed by 'deficits don't matter' and similar untruths.

For Republicans, polls show he may have the best chance of unseating President Obama in 2012. For Democrats, Ron Paul is the candidate most likely to preserve personal freedoms, even the ones is personally rejects. For America, a Ron Paul presidency is the best chance to evoke the change most of us say the country desperately needs.

PeaceLover's picture


Your a little hard to follow on the above but your right..

Obama wet on almost everything he promised.

And everyone except Ron Paul.. seem to be playing the fear card.. and if you take the time check them out they all seem to be lacking..


I see guys in this ZH room that seem to have more integrity than the guys that want to sell anything to lead.

1984 is here and about the only guy that may stand up against it is Ron Paul..

Killing in the name of  ???? God  Jesus.. big disconnect.. going on.. seems to me.

Teamtc321's picture

"Obama wet on almost everything he promised."


Wet? How about either shit, puked, jacked off on, blow torched, dumped, cigared, yanked, flushed, or mooned? 

PeaceLover's picture

I try to keep my four letter words to what his kids may someday read..

I have a hope that someday.. The Big O gets the same treatment the Big Trickle down guy(Reagan) gets from his kids..blood kids.
and if the words are too coarse they may not get a chance to read them.
Most with a I .Q get that he wasn't a true man of Courage integrity..
Watch the HBO special On Reagan.... may open the eyes of some..


I should have said something more to the facts.

That he seems so much into politics and winning again, that he can claim to his girls that he has done more intentional killing, and stealing from the poor than anyone that promised the exact opposite. And He can claim am so good at NLP and talking that they will vote for me again when I didn't do anything that caused change.. In fact I am a closet conservative. and the left will vote for me because the right can see how I take care of them.

Wall Street is richer. we are spending more on the the war machine than when I got elected.

We have more drones and more goverment. and the people that really count (the owners of the country are richer than ever)

dwdollar's picture

He's right Cdad. Try listening to Rushbo's opinion (if you can stomach it) on Paul and it's very clear. Most war-hawks in the Republican party would rather have Barry than Ron. Of course the elections are rigged anyway so it really doesn't fucking matter...