Death of big government as we know it, Ron Paul even with Obama. Poll.

It has been said often, that anyone in the US can aspire to be president. Today’s Rasmussen Poll is a clear indication that this is in fact the case.

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds.

Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class votes for Obama.

But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment.

Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president.

While I tend to find Paul a quirky character, I find myself more often in agreement with him than against. Apart from his weaknesses in foreign policy, mainly in the area of defense I tend to find him pretty sound. It’s a pity he seems to follow the leftist garbage line that the US is somehow an ‘empire’.

The poll though has him well within any margin of error. I doubt he could maintain the momentum in a real election with the rough and tumble of politics, but it must be a very disquieting time for Democrats when one of the most unlikely guys in Congress can be a threat to them.

It seems clear that if the Republicans can put up a genuinely fiscally conservative socially tolerant libertarian Republican in 2012, Obama is a goner. The slogan, “A second term for Jimmy Carter” will have been realized.

23 thoughts on “Death of big government as we know it, Ron Paul even with Obama. Poll.

  1. Obama has certainly fallen a long ways… the GOP will do will in elections this year, but Obama has a couple years to save himself. I think the Dems having so much control over congress was actually a disadvantage to him.

  2. Paul did well in such polls last time around. He just needs to win the primaries and that is where he struggles. Some republicans hate him.

    I don’t think Paul is weak on defence. He seems more tough minded on defence issues than most any other candidate. Much more strategic also.

    Paul has a few areas that concern me. Some of his noises about fractional reserve banking make me a bit nervous. However as a package I think he is the best contender for US president by a country mile.

  3. I don’t think Paul is weak on defense either. He sees the 700 military bases they have abroad as fiscally draining and counterproductive. I think his foreign policy of non-intervention is actually positive for national defense.

    If there are any weaknesses with Paul it could possibly be his views on immigration but I see this as just a minor quibble overall. Terje is right. He’s the best they’ve got by a mile.

    We could sure do with someone like that in a high profile position in Australia at the moment.

  4. There has been speculation for several months about Hillary although it has quietened down. I am inclined to think she is keeping her powder dry.

    Rather than the Dems having too much control being the problem, the manner in which that control has been exercised by the administration has come back to bite him. At his inauguration he had around 80% approval due in no small measure to his promise of an era of post partisanship, that hopey/changey thing, and the traditional non partisan respect shown for the institution of the Presidency. For these figures to be the case many Republicans must have been on the approval side at that time.

    Since that time the administration has shown an extraordinary degree of partisanship, bulldozing its wish list through regardless of the concerns of others, and has only attempted ‘bipartisanship’ as a last resort. That post race thing has shown as a sham as well with frequent attempts to brand opposition as racist.

    There is a strong and growing feeling that the government is elitist and isolated from the views of the public at large. The press partisanship actually reinforces this. Townhall has raised this with an article today pointing out:

    A new study by Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center found only 19 news stories on the Tea Party movement for the entire year on ABC, CBS and NBC. The Obama family dog received more attention.

    Arrogance has caused Obama to make some incredibly stupid moves such as ‘The war on Fox’ which backfired badly by increasing their ratings exponentially. Even Rudd would not be so stupid and narcissistic as to try to pull this one off.

    The real doosie was of course the White House snitch line, Flag@whitehouse.gov, calling for citizen informers to report any ‘fishy rumours,’ forwarded emails, any blog posts or any casual conversations that could be taken as opposition to Obamacare to the White House directly. It had to be pulled after doubts over its legality and a brutal lampooning.

    One of the best of these was a well known painting of George Washington’s crossing of the Potomac with the caption, “Seen suspicious activity? Report it to Flag@whitehouse.gov.

  5. Hmmm… when you look at everything he’s messed up, it is hard to imagine a recovery, even given a couple years – but politics is full of surprises. He has been much worse than I believed he would be – though the silver lining may be the Tea Party movement, which they ignore (or dismiss as racially motivated) at their peril.

    Didn’t Obama claim not to notice that big rally in DC a while back? That just made him seem either out of touch, or arrogantly dismissive.

  6. I’m not an expert on US politics but what about this Gary Johnson fellow (ex NM governor), who’s also running in 2012.

    He seems like the ultimate small-government libertarian, though I wonder if his drug policy will effectively make him unelectable.

  7. Try this one Mick, it was taken while Rand Paul was the speaker. The guy is inspiring.

    Papachango, great find. I haven’t heard of him before, but I’ll pass him on to some of my contacts.

  8. Jim – I first heard of him from here – one of the regular contributors put a video of him up.

    His policies are all good as far I’m concerned, and his triathlon/Mount Everest climbing efforts make Tony Abbott seem like a couch potato. He does come across as a little bit too ‘look at me, I’m cool’, which might not endear him to voters.

    who is ‘Rand Paul’ – the lovechild of Ayn & Ron? 😉

  9. Hahahaha:

    United States president Barack Obama says he and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd share several personality traits – one of which is humility.

    [Via Tim Blair]

  10. You guys are just pulling my chain aren’t you? Rand Paul son of Ron, Kentucky opthalmologist is the leading Republican candidate for the Senate seat for Kentucky being vacated by Sen. Jim Bunning who has endorsed him in preference to the GOP establishment choice, ex Democrat Trey Grayson who he leads by a handy 15%.

    There is some confusion as to the name. This from Libertarian Republican:

    I worked for Ron Paul, on and off, in various capacities for 15 years, from 1987 to 2003. This included the 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign as his Travel Aide. Rand, or as we knew him then, “Randy” was involved in his father’s presidential effort, particularly the last few months of 1988.

    I was there when he formally announced to everyone that he wanted us all to refer to him as “Rand.” His motivation was two-fold; his admiration for Ayn Rand, and the distinction of Rand as unique and more formal sounding.

    Ron Paul’s reaction at first was a bit negative, beliving his son’s name change decision to be a little silly. But he soon got used to it.

    I believe Rand did eventually go to the courthouse here in Brazoria County, Texas and officially get it changed.

  11. Seems he also differs with his old man on quite a few issues;

    “…the son is not the father when it comes both to foreign policy and the politics thereof; he’s less of a principled non-interventionist, and that aspect is less central to his philosophy.”
    http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/17/national-security-republicans

    “Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn’t believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he’d support federal drug laws, he’d vote to support Kentucky’s coal interests and he’d be tough on national security.

    “They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian,”

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html

  12. oh right. I thought ‘Rand’ was just a typo, or a freudian slip perhaps. sorry ’bout that.

  13. Terje@12: Don’t you mean coke? I’d be very surprised to hear that Gary Johnson had chased sweet lady H around and even more surprised if he had been able to get elected as governor with such an admission!

  14. OK Jaz it seems there is some confusion there in the reminiscences.

    I feel he is not a strict conservative as he has the backing of the Republican Liberty Caucus which essentially the libertarian wing of the party, although he may have attained it as a candidate with some credentials on personal liberty with a strong leaning towards fiscal conservatism.

  15. If any of you under any illusions that obama will be able to change after the mid terms, don’t even think about it as he can’t.

    This idiot was steeped in leftwing politics from the age his commie grandfather was able to converse with him on his knee.

    The guy simply shouldn’t be in the White House and the quicker he’s gone (2012) the better.

  16. I love Ron Paul so this has made me happy (only thing I don’t like him on is immigration).

  17. I think its ironic. Lets face it – most people vote for obama over stupid reasons – like the GOP being religious nut jobs, or being anti-gay or some such non-sense. And they instead get a modern liberal government – which will simply be more socialist than ever. What has obama done? Continued and expanded war, and socialised health care. Thats it. Everything else is utterly insignificant.

    And even if Ron Paul was president it wouldn’t matter, because he would be assassinated at every possible convience. Imagine how many people have so much to loose. For example a single company like boeing gets $50 billion a year, imagine if that stopped. There is no way he will be able to make the cuts he needs to, not even in 8 years, it would take decades, generations to pull us back.

Comments are closed.