Obama 39%, Paul 38%

Obama 39%, Paul 38%

www.rasmusse nreports.com

The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.rasmussenreports.com

Ron Paul and Obama are in a dead heat according to the latest Rasmussen report. I have been Saying Paul is the only republican who can beat Obama cause he appeals to dissafected dems and independents. The rest are seen for the GOP shills they are.

Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the long time congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%

Here we have the proof he attracts independents by the boat load over Barry S

www.rasmusse nreports.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Now if they'll let Paul into the later, major debates we'll see the tide turn his way.

*sigh* We can hope anyway.

War = Obama

No War = Paul

Huh. And I heard something on the radio, either yesterday or today, some sort of sound byte that Romney leading the way. I wondered about that byte. I thought it did bite!

Yeah, Ron Paul = Sanity.
Obama = More of the same ole same ole.

Well you are only giving half the story here. You fail to mention that Perry is higher than Paul and they have Romney actually beating Obama. I wouldn't say this has as much to do with Paul as it does the general publics dissatisfaction with the President.

Obama must be having a raging 'beer summit' after receiving this news. He can't feel good about only leading a man the MSM barely acknowledges by 1 point.

On the other hand, Paul can only go up from here, while Obama may be right about the general area he'll stay right into election day. The level of 'blue funk' Obama has created (among other things) just kinda lingers...for years. Here is hoping the news for Paul remains positive and gaining momentum!

Originally posted by hawkiye

Obama 39%, Paul 38%

www.rasmusse nreports.com

The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.

Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.rasmussenreports.com

well then how come I don't here this on the news?????
Its always romney vs obama

I suppose this is good news, although nothing really matters until the primary, and then the election...
I wanted to mention something I noticed today. When I got to my grandmothers today the tv was on some MSM station. I was working on her computer, and could hear it in the background.

They were discussing the results of a poll for the GOP candidates, and they placed Ron Paul in either 3rd or 4th, I can't really remember since I wasn't actually watching it. They barely mentioned him as if he had no chance. Just wondering if anyone else saw this program.

Originally posted by kro32
Well you are only giving half the story here. You fail to mention that Perry is higher than Paul and they have Romney actually beating Obama. I wouldn't say this has as much to do with Paul as it does the general publics dissatisfaction with the President.

No I'm not read the whole report it says nothing about Perry and Romney beating obama... It only says they are doing well in the GOP primaries.

I have consistently said Ron Paul will have a harder time winning the primary then the general election because republicans have thier heads up thier asses! If they pull thier heads out they would vote Paul to ensure they won the presidency...

Originally posted by kro32
Well you are only giving half the story here. You fail to mention that Perry is higher than Paul and they have Romney actually beating Obama. I wouldn't say this has as much to do with Paul as it does the general publics dissatisfaction with the President.

Why do you hate the constitution so much? your comments always seem biast towards the banks, and i wouldn't be surprised if you were one of the trolls sent here or paid for by the gov themselves. That being said, the only reason Ron paul is behind is because of the censorship the MSM has been pulling on him. The fact is, they know they wont be able to censor him any longer, I wonder if they knew this all along. In away they did manage to slow down Ron Paul a bit, thats for sure.

Fact of the matter is Ron Paul is polling better than the other top tiers when it comes to Obama because Paul can pull more independent votes.

The way its going to go down all depends on how he does in the first new caucuses and primaries. I do believe Paul can take Iowa, Louisiana, Texas, California and get 2nd in New Hampshire and maybe Nevada.

If either get's voted, the general populace lose.

The main fear I have (and have always had) is that I don't see why I'm supposed to trust Ron Paul any more than I trust any of the rest of them. My feeling has always been that they own everything (including any and all of the participants). If they let me hear about the guy at all, I start to wonder why I'm even allowed to know he exists. They seem to own the landscape so completely it just seems out of place that any genuine dissent would be allowed.

I don't know. Is the support for Ron Paul in this community real or is it an act of desperation? I've pretty much given up on trying to identify them by any common bond other than one. If I've heard of them (and especially if they're ever in the media at all) I tend to be suspicious of them. Of course, that's one of the ways in which control is maintained. If no one has ever heard of someone who's running for office, he'll never gain any traction at all.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
If no one has ever heard of someone who's running for office, he'll never gain any traction at all.

Not unless the media and the puppet masters decide so, probably not. And looks like they must have decided on Perry, because other than a very occasional appearance in the press- I'd never really heard much about Perry until all this hoopla of him running in 2012.

It's like he's come out of nowhere all of a sudden to the national stage. Ron Paul on the other hand has a long track history in Congress. And a damn near perfectly consistent one at that. How Perry could be leading Paul at all seems a mystery to me. So soon, so fast? Romney I could see it, but not Perry. Not this soon. Feels like Perry's being shoved down our throats. SOS, different day.

reply to post by RisenAngel77


And it would have nothing to do with peoples disagreement with Pauls stances on the issues? Remember he has had 30 years to get his message out and even ran last election so I find it hard to believe a lack of coverage about Paul has him losing.

Also your not giving people enough credit. What you are basically saying is that people can only vote for who the media pushes on us? There is no way we can look at the candidates and research their platform and make an informed decision?

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by RisenAngel77

 

And it would have nothing to do with peoples disagreement with Pauls stances on the issues?

It has more to do with the fact that he's marginalized. People DO pay attention to the media. The media DOES steer debates and public opinion. You may not think so but if you don't, maybe you've never allowed them to manipulate you (or if you have, you don't realize it). I look back and I see how they manipulated me starting when Bush 1 was in office and then when Clinton was elected (That was around the time when I first started paying any attention to politics).

People (in general) might well disagree with a guy like Ron Paul. But a lot of people trust people like Obama and even GWB.

Also your not giving people enough credit. What you are basically saying is that people can only vote for who the media pushes on us? There is no way we can look at the candidates and research their platform and make an informed decision?

No. I'm not saying that people can't make an informed decision (which still doesn't mean TPTB can't stack the deck and win every time anyway). I'm saying that most people won't bother. If they bother to vote at all they'll most likely let the media do their thinking for them because it's a lot easier and we live in an age of convenience. You think the guy who cooks every meal in the microwave is going to do the amount of research it would take to make a fully informed decision in every election? Possible but unlikely. That guy is going to turn on the TV and watch the circus that's passed off as primaries and debates and so forth until he decides which one he likes the most and then he's gonna vote for that candidate.

I've never even turned my stove on so I respectfully disagree with you.

And microwave meals can be very healthy!!

You do realize even if ron paul did win we might see another JFK all over again

Originally posted by kro32
I've never even turned my stove on so I respectfully disagree with you.

And microwave meals can be very healthy!!

Well, I use my microwave all the time too. I'm not saying you're a bad person if you do. I'm just saying the times in which we live have made it far less likely that most people will do vast amounts of research on political candidates. It's easier to just watch the news. And I'd say that's what at least 70% of people do. Maybe that's not you but if not, you're in the minority.