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.
zebra's picture

bro, i hope you are right!

A Lunatic's picture

It was my understanding that Ron Paul himself said that he would NOT run third party. Why would he want to end up sloppy thirds again? Correct, he would not.

SuperVillain's picture

Dr. Paul always says he dosen't believe in absolutes and neither of those articles quote Dr. Paul as saying he's not running third party. He has yet to say he's ruled out a third party run.

 

A Lunatic's picture

Yeah okay. I guess when Ron Paul says he's not considering a third party run you pretty much have to expect that he's full of shit? Good grief man, get a grip on reality. I think as adults we can all admit that he will (sadly) not be getting the Republican nomination. I also think Ron Paul has enough dignity and self respect to avoid whoring after the Presidency from a negligible third party position.

SuperVillain's picture

why would he say he's considering a third party run when he's trying for the GOP nomination? Wouldn't that be like saying sure I'll be over for dinner and bring myself a big mac combo. Again, nowhere in the articles you've provided, or any I've read, does it say he's ruled out a third party run. He was grilled on this extensively because he wouldn't rule out a third party run. When he says he has "no plans" to run third party that's because he's running for the republican nomination. When he says he doesn't like absolutes that's leaving the door open to a third party run. Whether or not he will I don't know but I know he hasn't ruled it out.

A Lunatic's picture

"I have no intention of doing that. No plans, and no desire. Flat out, I don't want to." -Ron Paul-

 

This is what the man says every time he is pressured for an answer........search it out for yourself. Is Ron Paul just another seedy, lying, D.C. scumbag............? Or does he mean what he says? I believe it's the latter, and that is what I base my statements on. Time will tell, and to be honest he is unelectable any way you want to parse it. The MSM propaganda headlines are misleading.........imagine.

Learn more and know less's picture

In a political context "I have no intention of doing that. No plans, and no desire. Flat out, I don't want to." doesn't translate as I definately will not.

I believe all the above means is that he guenuinely wants to win the GOP candidacy, and if he were to appear to leave the door open this would geperdize that ambition.

So if he fails in that ambition and runs as a third party that doesn't make him, "just another seedy, lying, D.C. scumbag"  

I'm afraid you are right about the fact that no matter what happens he won't be allowed to win the presidency, something very serious would have to happen to dislodge TPTB before that could happen.

UP Forester's picture

I have no plan to leave my job.

That doesn't mean I won't if conditions change.

Semantics, yes, and I rule out eating my dogs as of this moment.

However....

Questan1913's picture

A Lunatic,

The direct quotes are

"no plan" and  "not considering"

The media was trying to trap him into a response that would destroy his candidacy as a Republican.  The good doctor very deftly evaded giving an unequivocal answer.  Notice the present tense of the responses?  Those statements are of that moment and far from binding at any future time in which circumstances might be changed.  He has definitely not foreclosed the possibility of an independent candidacy.  And he is by far the best candidate in the field.

A Lunatic's picture

For Fucks sake...........I hope he rides in on a purple fucking unicorn, sword in hand as a full blooded Independent and sweeps the field clean. It is not going to happen. If he does not get the Republican nomination he will gracefully bow out and pass the torch. Plan on four more years of Obama. Oh and don't forget to vote.

Provocateur's picture

I don't consider RP's responses unequivocal at all. Weasely? Perhaps, but you don't show your hand in poker or your strategy in chess.

But there are other, far more important considerations here...can RP win in a 3-way race? (not likely). For that matter, could Romney or any other R? (highly unlikely). Could Obama? (quite likely). And are the Rs considering this, or are they so arrogant as to think they could squash RP in a 3-way? (very likely - that they are that arrogant, that is).

Frankly, I don't give a damn. Who's in the WH is not the end all be all, and neither party has my respect.

But if I was a top R, I would prvately want O to win...why? There's no better fundraiser than a common enemy, and you can blame the country's problems on him, rather than take the heat.

I'd make a decent show of the POTUS race, while focusing on taking the senate and keeping the house. If RP was a spoiler, all the better. I'd trash him for "making us lose", and circle the wagons for 2016.

shuckster's picture

Ron Paul is not Ross Perot and the 1992 election is nothing like this one. There was no 9/11 back then. No Housing Crisis. The deficit was neglible. No Iraq, Afghanistan and no EU. And if the Republicans think Ron Paul will be a Ross Perot this time around, well then they're going to prove themselves wrong like they have the last 100 times they made a projection outside of from how far they could shoot a wad at their wives face

Rynak's picture

The R's will never let him win. The D's will never let him win. Yet, shallowly, R's seem more close to him. AND: R's and D's are where you get a publicity boost.

Theoretical optimal approach: First claim to run for R's get publicity, then at the right moment bail out and run as independent (even if you do not get the presidency, if you get a large voter share, it will still influence the rest, and lay the stepping stones for your future (yeah, issue, age... i'm ignoring it for now to keep things simple).

But that is pure logics..... that it makes sense and seems efficient, does not mean that someone... i.e. RP, will follow it.

No disrespect, BB.... i like you.... just being full-frontal honest, which i think you deserve for doing the same.

NeoRandian's picture

If Ron Paul is smart, he'll pick his son as his running mate. Then the global elitists will have two assassinations to handle.

grekko's picture

Jesse is okay, but I prefer the Judge (Napolitano).  But in reality, the others will steal all the votes anyway.  Maybe its time for a good old fashioned necktie party in DC.

Thomas Jefferson's picture

He will.  He already knows he wont get the Republican nomination.  He is laying pipe down for the inevitable revolution.

Cdad's picture

Woot!  And good timing, as E-verify has flagged President Zero's Social Security Number...ummmm...and it seems like there is going to be a bit of a show tomorrow afternoon on the matter:

 

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344461/

zebra's picture

nice...

but i think the head of USCIS is packing up and ready to 'resign'..

Cdad's picture

 

 

 

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/media-finally-paying-attention-to-eligibility/

So...let me see if I got this right...you think the issue of Presdent Zero's eligibility is no larger than a bureaucratic paperwork issue?

Follow up question...in the Water Army...is there a lower rank than private?  If so, that would have to be you...and I'd like to know what your rank is.  Thanks.

macholatte's picture

smoke this

The topic of discussion will be an investigation by Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse into concerns about Obama’s eligibility. It’s the first time an official law enforcement report has addressed many of the allegations about the presumptive 2012 Democratic nominee for president.

The issues include Obama’s eligibility under the U.S. Constitution’s requirements, questions about his use of a Connecticut Social Security number and the image of his purported birth certificate from Hawaii.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/media-finally-paying-attention-to-eligibility/

Cdad's picture

Well...that is what Cdad be sayin.  This is the first time that an actual member of law enforcement has admitted to moving forward with an investigation.  I'm not sayin' they cart President Zero out of town tomorrow afternoon, but what I am sayin' is that the MSM cannot ignore what is happening here.

But oh....ooooohhhhhhh....let the apathetic short bus, lower than private Water Army members post away their typical shit.  Let it roll on and on...until the user names need to be discarded.

palmereldritch's picture

If there is any real substance to that then the message was probably delivered by GHWB (Bush 41) and JEB (Bush 45) when they met with Obama (Bush 44) in January of this year.

Expect a brokered convention and if JEB emerges as the the GOP nom expect Obamao to take a monumental   d  i  v  e 

lakecity55's picture

Yeah, they're not hiring the kind of pros like they used to at Langley.

Abu Hussein is really Nako Nacho from Indonesia.

holdbuysell's picture

What's the lowest percentage of the voters to ever elect a president?

Makes me think the following result may not be too far off, and could we see history as a result?

% of Voters won by:

Obama: 39%

Romney: 37%

Paul: 24%

edit: to clarify, would this be the first time the red and blue split as usual, with the winner not getting out of the 30% range, and an independent garners a substantial voting share?

JPM Hater001's picture

Clinton won twice with a plurality...it happens.

NoClueSneaker's picture

Old camels ... That was during the time of the presidency of B.J. Lewinski ...

The most of the blowjobs served to the enterpreneurs from China.

Q: Did Hillary serviced some special requests ?

 

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

The result you describe is eerily similar to the 1912 election (hmmm, funny year, no?). Certain "people" encouraged Teddy Roosevelt to mount a 3rd party run on the Bull Moose ticket, ultimately splitting the vote between himself and the Republican candidate, Taft.

Certain "people" also persuaded the Democratic candidate, Wilson, to sign central banking legislation, should such legislation ever cross his desk as president. He agreed. Of course, the legislation crossed in December 1913 and Wilson kept his word to these "people" and thereby double-crossed THE people.

BTW, the results were 41% for Wilson, 27% for TR, and 23% for Taft.  

FMR Bankster's picture

And along with the Fed Wilson got us started on sticking our nose in other peoples wars. We made it 130 years with the Europeons kicking each others butt's on a regular basis without any help from us but thanks to Wilson it's "have a war, call the US". Clearly one of the five worst presidents of all time and that's a tough list to make.

Yen Cross's picture

That is because Hitler assassinated the other 66% through attrition. Previous COUX-p la De Grax.

  I'm pleased to see you are studying History. Keep up the good work.

 

NoClueSneaker's picture

Yeah, Garbage Motors, Pratt & Withney, Ford , Monsanto, CocaGulag, DuPoint made an superpac then, and made it possible :-P

SocialFascist of Germany r still in the power.

 

Who's yer daddie ?

 

shuckster's picture

Obama got 50,000,000 votes - that's 16.6% of the population that voted for him

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Paul would woop his ass in the ring, too.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Mr Lennon Hendrix said:

Paul would woop his ass in the ring, too.

You're damn straight he would:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151617/phonics-monkey-attacks

(with Ron Paul as Phonics Monkey and Barack Obama as Kenny McCormick)

 

thatthingcanfly's picture

RP's grilling of the bernank today demonstrates he's the only truly "presidential" candidate in the running for the Republican nom. Honestly, can anyone imagine Santorum or Romney being able to talk intelligently about these problems in a setting such as that?

zebra's picture

of course one can imagine what it would be like with Santorun or Romney--it would be the same as US people have experienced since G Bush was in the office... Wall Street pick the candidates for both parties, and the US people do the rest.

 

 

nmewn's picture

Any of my pit bulls could beat Obama...and they are much more articulate and they never lie to me.

Ummm, errr, woof.

lolmao500's picture

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/213351-fed-boss-warns-...

Bernanke warns lawmakers nation headed for 'massive fiscal cliff'

In remarks that hit Wall Street stock prices, the central bank boss suggested the economy could hit a serious roadblock if Congress allows the Bush tax rates and a payroll tax cut to expire and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts to be implemented simultaneously in January.

Ben : MORE SPENDING!! MORE TAX CUTS!! YES WE CAN BITCHEZ!

lolmao500's picture

Win :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/oklahoma-personhood-fetal-perso...

"If I wanted the government in my womb," the sign said in painted blue letters, "I'd FUCK a Senator."

Cathartes Aura's picture

whoa!  at this moment your post / link has 7 upvotes, no downvotes. . . from the article linked:

The "Personhood Act," introduced by Sen. Brian Crain (R), would give legal personhood rights to embryos from the moment of fertilization. A similar measure was rejected in Mississippi, one of the most conservative states in the country, because legal and medical experts raised concerns that the bill could ban some forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization and stem cell research.

Although Oklahoma Republicans have passed numerous abortion restrictions over the past few years, the culture wars over women's health and birth control that are currently happening nationally have reignited the women's rights movement on the state level, bringing unprecedented amounts of attention to what are now routine challenges to women's reproductive health.

I'm wondering how you "upvoters" see a substantial difference between this and the Sanctity of Life Act that Ron Paul puts forward every 2 years, most recently 2011?

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[7] [8] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act#Findings

my opinions on this are well known - but I must ask again - what's the difference?  the one that lets you agree with the article's stance, and also support Ron Paul?

"The Republicans have awakened a sleeping giant," McIntyre said. "When you get women stirred up, particularly the young women who are used to being able to make decisions about their own bodies, you are going to be challenged and challenged hard."

one would certainly HOPE so. . .

(thanks for the link lolmao500, it's a gem.)

Cursive's picture

So this is why Rombot must be nominated...rambling about Michigan's trees notwithstanding.

UP Forester's picture

The only tree Mittens could identify is the Money Tree shoved up his ass....

JohnnyBriefcase's picture

I would love more than anything for voting to actually matter and change anything.

 

I'm pretty certain it would be banned if that happened unfortunately.

bigwavedave's picture

Can we see how Nelson Mandela stacks up. Just as likely for him to be the GOP nominee

YesWeKahn's picture

Unfortunately all the selfish republican candidates will not let Ron to go head to head with Ob.

rsnoble's picture

I fucking hate our politicians. I wish them fucking death every night when I go to bed.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

rsnoble said:

I fucking hate our politicians. I wish them fucking death every night when I go to bed.

Why are you going so easy on them?  ;)