Poll: Ron Paul in third with 14% nationally

According to one of the latest polls by Gallup, Ron Paul is in third place nationally with 14%:

Mitt Romney 24%
Rich Perry 17%
Ron Paul 14%
Michele Bachmann 13%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Herman Cain 4%
Tim Pawlenty 3%
Jon Huntsman 2%
Rick Santorum 1%

Furthermore, Rasmussen has him at 16% in Iowa:

Bachmann 22%
Romney 21%
Paul 16%
Perry 12%
Pawlenty 11%

So why do people STILL persist in saying "He can't win; he can't win." Before they kept saying it was the polls. Now the polls show him as a clear top tier candidate. So why do people still buy into this idea?

It's time to acknowledge that Ron Paul may be the next President of the United States.

 

Good news.

Too bad there was not a debate every week...I do not recall ever seeing a candidate 'wipe the floor' with the others as Paul seems to, debate after debate.

From what I saw of last night's debate - he did it yet again.

Just goes to show that common sense and intelligence wins over ignorance and greed every time...eventually...in the end.

He may not win, but it is encouraging to see that is message is finally gaining popularity. It bodes well for America's future, imo.

 

He whooped a$$ yesterday in the straw poll in Iowa beating out everyone else by a clear margin.

You can see the videos and chart on infowars dot com

Santorum is a doosh, Perry wasnt there, he is a sell out, bachmann is a moron, wallace and baeir are toolbags and ...I think that covers it.

http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-vs-gop-warmongers-congressman-romps-to-victory-in-iowa-debate/

 

I basically agree with you.

I tell you, of all the candidates; Santorum and Bachmann scare me by FAR the most.

The latter is clearly none too bright and the former is just scary. He's like Sen. McCarthy (from the 50's) for the 21'st century.

What bothers me most about Romney is not what he says - he seems harmlessly, empty-headed (politically) - but that this bland guy who seems to stand for nothing is still leading.

 

I concur on all accounts, DA60, although I can tell you are a bit more aged than myself because I am not familiar with Mccarthy. Nothing wrong with that though, age, as time equals wisdom in my opinion.

And yes I know sometimes I am not so eloquent.

 

He can win, the biggest problem (as I see it anyway) is that the Conservative field is so broken up, too many candidates that have their own niche.

I think Ron is probably more appealing to Liberals and Independents than other GOP candidates, their votes will be needed.

 

Ron Paul is the only one who actually wants to conserve spending on that board. He also has the best understanding of economics -- the leading influence for today's mainstream position of auditing the Fed. We just have to wait for this straw poll tomorrow to see what most people think of him.

 

Actually, I am not that old - lol - McCarthyism was before my time as well.

But I have read and watched documentaries about him...creepy guy.

 

Because Republican primary voters will not nominate him to represent their party.

 

You must be on crack..

Paul scared the POO out of any reasonable intelligent person.

The easiest guy for the democrats to defeat.

Iran not a threat?
Snort some root beer next time..

Another congressman with ZERO experience in executive Powers
Just another career politician.. 3 time loser trying to be relevant for another year.

I would certainly vote HILLARY before Paul..and so would the majority if dems pull Obama out.

Sound NO FED BS wont matter when a suit case nuke goes off in your town..all because a little quirky old man brought home all the troops and killed the Defense dept.

He stumbles..he bumbles...and he is wrong.

and for your fun..describe what job creation and company turn around he has done..

EVER.

 

Iran will have no reason to nuke us if we leave them alone.

 

Amidst the chaos, Ron Paul shines through

'WASHINGTON, August 11, 2011 – One thing you could say about the debate; this one was definitely more exciting than the last one. Once again, Ron Paul came away looking smarter than the rest....'

http://communities.washingtontimes....cal-pro-con/2011/aug/12/ron-paul-iowa-debate/


Here are the Ron Paul highlights of the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom#p/a/f/0/sdGsPioLLvQ

 

Not mine. I was in high school, and not very politically aware, when I concluded that his "UnAmerican Activities Commission" sounded pretty un American.

Now, I'm more aware of what happened, and know for sure that McCarthy was a dangerous kook.

Which gives us some hope: We've survived kooks before. Should we elect one this time, maybe we can do it again.

It's good to see Romney leading. He's the one who actually has a shot at winning the general election, and also has a track record of pulling financially failing entities out of the tar pit of bankruptcy. Among all of the issues, which one is more important than that?

And, if the thread is about this poll, why was the third place candidate featured?

"So and So comes in third at Indy" is a pretty unlikely headline, it seems to me.

 

--------------

Paul is 75, and looks it. He talks a bit like Daffy Duck. He has not got a snowball's chance!

He has some great ideas though.

 

If Romney or Perry wins the election, they should appoint Ron Paul to their Cabinet. Secretary of the Treasury sounds about right.

 

If Iran developed nuclear weapons capabilities, then it would be possible for them to pass that capability off to one of their terror proxies. There is NO WAY we can let them develop a nuclear weapon. It could cause a nuclear holocaust.

 

I would be UP for that..all the people on that stage would be better than TEAM OBAMA.

 

No way. This is unbelievable, if he keeps this up, he could....win?

 

All it demonstrates is that Ron Paul is resonating with a national audience, but he is not trying to convince a national audience that he's the right man for the job right now, he's trying to convince Republicans that he's the right man for the job, and they've already made it quite clear they will not nominate him to run for President. Personally, I would rather see Ron Paul in a cabinet position like the Secretary of the Treasury. That would be the ideal role for him.

 

If you think that those guys would even think of appointing Ron Paul to federal dogcatcher or that he'd think about accepting if they did, it seems you don't perceive the unbridgable gap between the Establishment and the anti-Establishment.

First of all, as Paul said, the CIA itself admits they're not trying to.

Secondly, if they WERE trying to, they almost certainly wouldn't try to use it or get someone else to because they'd know it would be suicidal to THEM. They'd want them for the same reason everyone else does: political leverage against hostile powers.

Thirdly, there are only two ways you could try to discourage them from doing so: force or persuasion. Trying to use force through, say, trade sanctions or targeted bombing would only encourage them, while outright toppling the regime would create total chaos in the region, in the long run probably leading to MORE dictators trying to get nukes.

Therefore, all you have left is persuasion and the best way to persuade them from not seeking a nuke would be to move to a non-interventionist, non-bellicose foreign policy, thereby removing their incentive for doing so: political leverage against hostile powers.

You do realize these are polls of Republicans, right?

 

Republicans overlooked age when electing Reagan and oratorical skills when electing Bush. Besides, I find Ron Paul's manner much more likeable that the waxworks on stage with him.

 

Come on Dr. Paul , you can do it.

 

Actually, polls ALSO show that he has one of the best chances of beating Obama.

It's not an immediate threat and whatever threat it is right now is best diffused with through non-interventionist foreign policy.

"Experience" as pretty poor reason for voting for someone. It's irrelevant what "experience" they have if they're principles (assuming they have any) are bad.

A non-interventionist foreign policy would reduce the risk of terrorism and make us all safer, in addition to strengthening the economy, reducing the ongoing destruction of civil libertarians and centralization of the state, and ending much suffering around the world.

 

Sounds like a great idea!

 

-------
Reagan was still in his sixties when he was first elected. Big difference. Remember Dole and McCain?

Don't get me wrong, I would love for Paul to be president. I'm a anti-war, anti-foreign aid conservative. I'm a strong believer in states rights.