Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Shock Poll: Obama 42%, Paul 41%



April 14, 2010 – Comments (17)

Shock Poll, that's the headline on Drudge.  Rasmussen released a poll that shows Ron Paul in a statistical dead heat with Obama for the 2012 Presedential election.  What I find most interesting is the high support for Paul among Independents.  Republicans are generally split on Paul.  Those who want to roast Arab babies on the White House lawn can't stand him.  Those who don't, kinda like him.  One positive note is that perhaps the MSM will stop referring to him as a longshot.  Perhaps.....

But before we start licking each other's lollipops, here are some realities:

-Dr. Paul's support among Republicans is too low to win the Primary. As a 3rd party candidate, he has no shot.

-Some of Paul's success is due to the general drop in support for Obama.  Even Cankles Clinton is seen more favorably now than the Banker's Puppet. 

-The stock market rise isn't fooling the average American, but if it keeps going long enough it might.  How many people are going to ask, "hey wasn't Zimbabwe's stock market the world's top performer in 2007?"

I'd like to say more, but my time is short.

David in Qatar


17 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 14, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Melaschasm (71.37) wrote:

An interesting post, and you are right, it says more about opposition to Obama than anything else.  However, it is good to see Ron Paul getting some traction. 

Ironically it is likely that conservative independents are the ones pushing up Ron Pauls numbers, since self defined conservatives outnumber republicans by a wide margin.

Since Obama is so likely to win the democrat nomination, the growing opposition to Obama seems to indicate that the Republican nomination is going to be vitally important in 2012.  It might be a good idea for independents who are not happy with the republican party to register as a republican by the end of the summer of 2011...  While it seems unlikely that the republican party will nominate a libertarian, it is much more likely than the chances of a third party libertarian winning.

Report this comment
#2) On April 14, 2010 at 5:06 PM, kdakota630 (29.18) wrote:

Cankles Clinton?

LOL!  I'd have given you a rec for that alone.

Report this comment
#3) On April 14, 2010 at 5:14 PM, ChrisGraley (28.65) wrote:

I'm shocked!

How could Obama rank that high?



Report this comment
#4) On April 14, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Dintaurran (< 20) wrote:

Ron Paul will be 78 years old in 2012, luckily he doesn't look as old as McCain. 

Not sure how well deflation and the accompanying recession will sell to Americans either, regardless of whether it would be good for us or not.  Much will depend on if our loveable central bankers can keep the juggling act going.

Report this comment
#5) On April 14, 2010 at 7:55 PM, kdakota630 (29.18) wrote:

Report this comment
#6) On April 14, 2010 at 8:24 PM, SUPERMANSTOCKS (39.40) wrote:

I like Ron Paul, he makes sense!

Report this comment
#7) On April 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM, starbucks4ever (87.63) wrote:

I think you are making a mistake by considering Ron Paul as an independent political figure. Not every politician is playing to win. Some have strings attached to their arms and legs, LOL.

Report this comment
#8) On April 15, 2010 at 8:10 AM, ChrisGraley (28.65) wrote:

Yep, Obama was bought by the unions, banks and healthcare companies for instance.

Report this comment
#9) On April 15, 2010 at 1:35 PM, FleaBagger (27.45) wrote:

Zloj - Who is controlling Ron Paul? Explication? Evidence?  

Report this comment
#10) On April 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM, ocsurf (< 20) wrote:

Obama is a one-term President.

Report this comment
#11) On April 15, 2010 at 2:59 PM, starbucks4ever (87.63) wrote:

#9 - no evidence, just intuition. OK, one indirect evidence: if he were serious about wanting the top job, he would have long ago joined the libertarian party or run as an independent instead of acting like a village fool within his own Republican party which he knows full well is never going to nominate him.

Report this comment
#12) On April 15, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Option1307 (30.50) wrote:

he would have long ago joined the libertarian party or run as an independent instead of acting like a village fool within his own Republican party which he knows full well is never going to nominate him.

Interesting point here Zolj, never really thought of that event hough it was so obvious.

Report this comment
#13) On April 15, 2010 at 3:43 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:


He did join the Libertarian Party a long time ago.  He ran as their Presidential candidate in 1988.  Then he left politics. He rejoined the Repubs bacause third parties have no shot in America.

Here's a 1988 interview with Dr. Paul

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#14) On April 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM, angusthermopylae (37.91) wrote:

#10 Obama is a one-term President.

Back in 1995, I was a Marine flight student in Pensacola, FL.  Clinton was President, which (of course) every military member that I knew thought was a Bad Thing(tm) in general*.

So one day I walk into the duty office, getting ready for a flight, when I overhear a discussion between two Marine captains.  And one of them said, "Clinton is going to get elected to a second term."

The other captain was aghast--how could such blasphemy come from the mouth of a true jarhead?!?  The first captain explained:  One of the reasons that Clinton won in the first place was bad economy.  After 3 years in office, the economy was getting better; ergo, people will vote for him because their day-to-day lives have shown an improvement during his term.

I wasn't able stay for the rest of the conversation, but I never forgot that prediction--which turned out to be completely accurate in outcome and reasoning.

So, the lesson to remember is that economics works both ways--depending upon what happens and when, the direction of the economy apparently has at least a significant influence elections.**

Sure, there could be the old "dead hooker or live boy" type of influence, but if you're trying to predict long term (2 years in politics is forever), then you have to use a long-term basis.  For that reason, a Bullish anti-Obama investor is probably going to be severely disappointed on at least one point, just like a Bearish Obama supporter.


*I'm still of the opinion that Clinton was generally a poor president with respect to military matters--but then there's Bush and Cheney.  Hard to get ticked off at incompetence when you've had to deal with truly sinister...


**Please note that I'm neither supporting nor denigrating the influence of economics or whoever is in office.  As investors, we have to go with "what is" (or, more often, "what probably is") as opposed to "what we wish."  One of the main ideas of Fooldom is seeing what's there, and leaving your personal desires at the door.

Report this comment
#15) On April 16, 2010 at 2:58 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

So ... people vote their pocketbooks. Long held to be a political truism. However, the general economy has been sputtering about, and no one can predict the future even in November 2010 - but the question at hand is will a general rise in the market and people's positive perceptions of the economy outweigh the potential negative impacts of increased taxation (as evidenced by the Tea Party Movement - a la Rick Santelli et. al.) in the mid of voters.

And again in 2012?

It would seem whereaminow's suggestion of investing in government contractors involved in the war machine - would appear to have staying power. Are they still a good bet?

If taxation does continue to go up as being detailed (like the possible VAT, expiration of Bush Tax cuts, hidden taxes in the health care billl) then it would be my question that the more the luxury or optional nature of the consumer good - the less chance it has of growth the longer this Congress and this President remain in control.

Aside from that ... I want to talk to the Captain that angusthermopylae mentions above ... he seems to have the pulse of things.

 Known as Congress-Watcher nzsvz9

Report this comment
#16) On April 16, 2010 at 3:00 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

oh and ...

Cankles! ...  Cankles! ...  Cankles! ...  Cankles! ...  Cankles! ...  Cankles! ...


Known as cankle-critic nzsvz9

Report this comment
#17) On April 16, 2010 at 3:32 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Here are two more interesting tidbits I picked up at the Lew Rockwell blog:

Far ‘Right’ Wingers Napolitano and Paul on SPLC Enemies List Posted by David Kramer on April 16, 2010 01:16 PM

The liars over at the Southern Poverty (of Ideas) Law Center have placed Andrew Napolitano and Ron Paul on their Meet the ‘Patriots’ list. I love those single quotes around ‘Patriots.’ They’re meant to signify that Napolitano and Paul aren’t really patriots according to the Bankster puppets at the SPLC. Their idea of true patriotism is to support the fractional-reserve/wealth-destroying (for all except the Banksters) central banking system.

To prove that last sentence, here’s a part from their Napolitano rant:

“Napolitano has joined other conspiracy theorists in falsely claiming that efforts to expand affordable housing through the Community Reinvestment Act were responsible for the crash of the economy in 2008.”

And this one from their Paul rant:

“Whether he’s advocating…trashing the Fed, or returning to the gold standard…”

I rest my case.


Ron Paul Leaves the Beltway in the Dust Posted by Lew Rockwell on April 16, 2010 08:40 AM

Justin Raimondo has written many great articles, but his latest on Ron Paul and the libertarian movement ranks with his best. As Justin shows, Ron’s long record of being right on the Rothbardian synthesis of Austrian economics and anti-imperialism, his never-failing eloquence and courage in telling the truth about what the Fed is doing to our economy, and the empire to our freedoms, is resonating with the American people. We all know we’re in a pickle, but in DC, only Ron Paul says so, explains why, and shows what to do. We also admire Ron for his refusal to knuckle-under to the power elite. The “eccentric billionaire,” who Justin notes controls the Beltway “libertarian” movement, and who is also the Republican party’s biggest moneybags, has instructed his minions to marginalize and even smear Ron, a man whose yard he isn’t fit to mow. This obsession has gone on for more than 20 years, beginning when he ordered Ron to stop criticizing the Fed and otherwise to obey him. But just as, incompetent in ideological matters as he is competent in the state-related oil business, he tried to destroy Murray and Austrian economics, and failed abysmally, so he has failed against Ron. How blessed are we to be living in the Age of Murray and Ron, and to be able to join the right for freedom, peace, economic truth, and honest money. Austro-ibertarianism has a very bright future indeed, in the US and around the world. Carpe diem!

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners