A Stunning 40% of Americans Are Now Independent. Ron Paul Polls Highest Among Independents, and Independents Would Vote for Paul Over Obama

Independents Prefer Ron Paul

While mainstream pundits desperately cling to their mantra that Ron Paul is “unelectable”, the numbers show a different story.

Gallup finds a record high 40% of all Americans now identify as independents. This is higher than the 31% of Americans who identify as Democrats and 27% as Republicans.

And which candidate do independents like?

According to a new CBS poll, they like Ron Paul.

As Forbes notes:

In a head to head match up with incumbent President Barack Obama, the indie voter chooses Ron Paul, a CBS News poll suggested on Monday.

A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. If a Paul-Obama showdown were ever to take place, 47% of independent voters would vote for Paul, 81% republicans and 10% Democrats for a total of 45% of the vote. Obama would get just 40% of the independent vote in that contest, with 85% of the Democrats choosing Obama and 9% of Republicans choosing the President on election day in November.

Admittedly, Forbes notes that – if the general election were held today – Romney could beat Obama, and Paul couldn’t:

Obama would win the general election by a narrow one point margin if the election was held today between the two.

However, Ron Paul is not the favorite among conservatives polled. Romney is the leader there, getting 90% of the conservative vote, followed by Texas governor Rick Perry at 85%. Ron Paul comes in tied with Newt Gingrich at No. 4 with 81% of conservatives voting for that particular candidate.

Romney is the only GOP candidate seen beating Obama in November by a two point margin, according to the poll. Paul is in second.

However, given that the CBS poll has a 3% margin of error, Romney and Paul are statistically tied in a match-up against Obama.

And Romney’s Gordon Gekko background is just starting to get air time in this campaign. And watch this short video.

And while I don’t believe that anyone should be discriminated against based upon their religion, the more protestants learn that Romney is a Mormon, the less they like him.

So – despite the mainstream’s attempts to sideline Paul as “unelectable” – I think that once the facts are aired, Paul would do better against Obama than Romney.

This entry was posted in Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Rocco Sirfredi

    Congressman Ron Paul perfectly matches the definition of what a bullshitter is all about, as masterfully explained by Harry Frankfurt(*) in his magnum opus “On Bullshit”

    “For the bullshitter it is in itself neither a reason in favor nor a reason against. Both in lying and in telling the truth people are guided by their beliefs concerning the way things are. These guide them as they endeavor either to describe the world correctly or to describe it deceitfully. For this reason, telling lies does not tend to unfit a person for telling the truth in the same way that bullshitting tends to. Through excessive indulgence in the latter activity, which involves making assertions without paying attention to anything except what it suits one to say, a person’s normal habit of attending to the ways things are may become attenuated or lost. Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game. Each responds to the facts as he understands them, although the response of the one is guided by the authority of the truth, while the response of the other defies that authority and refuses to meet its demands. The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

    *Harry G. Frankfurt (born May 29, 1929) – American philosopher. He is professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University
    On Bullshit – ISBN: 9780691122946 – Princeton University Press.

    • Homesick Billy

      Interesting how you present a 200 word essay which you say defines what it means to be “a bullshitter”, but then offer not so much as ONE word on how it is that Dr. Paul satisfies this definition. Truth is, the only case you make for any position, is that it is you yourself are trying to bullshit us. For one to insist on a conclusion and to beat a person over the head with it without offering the least bit of fact or evidence to justify their conclusion -this is for certain a sure sign that a person is probably full of shit. And well of course, it just goes without saying, that once a person is entirely full of shit, the bullshit will inevitably begin to spew from out of their foaming lips…

  • DR

    It seems to me that having Paul win the republican nomination would be the democrats worst nightmare, as it would force Obama to answer some really tough questions!

  • TH

    That 40% would be higher without the closed primary states. I am forced to affiliate with a party or be shut out of most of the primary, so I choose my party based on the local elections. Have gone back and forth many times – would much prefer to register as an Independent. Friends here do the same shuffling of registration.

  • Goin’ South

    As an electoral abstentionist and anarchist, I like the idea of a Paul 3rd party run. It would brutally expose the corruption in the two-party, no-choice system to which we are subjected.

    Paul also provides a potential route to a better world. He’s right about the State. In a Capitalist system, it can never be more than a source of corruption and oppression. It will also serve money as long as it exists.

    He’s very naive about Capital in some ways. Yes, he sees the corruption of MIC and banking. That’s great. But that’s not some perversion of Capitalism. It’s the essence. Those two sectors represent two of the last successful sectors of the economy, propped up by the State as Capitalism in general fails in spectacular fashion.

    The attempt of Paul and his followers to redefine Capitalism so as to exclude its current manifestation are pointless, even dangerous. Capitalism always degenerates to monopoly and corruption. When profit is the controlling motive, monopoly will always be the goal of every enterprise and corruption the method.

    Real libertarianism recognizes that Capital, i.e. private ownership of the means of production, is the first enemy of freedom, with Capital’s handmaiden, the State, serving only a secondary role. We will only succeed when we rid ourselves our both.

  • Goin’ South

    One further point. I’m happy to see that you’ve read David Graeber’s “Debt” and written about it here.

    Graeber’s most important point, drawn from the historical record, is that human relationships are more than a business deal, as the Propertarians like Paul would have us believe.

  • Ron Paul is the only candidate who speaks truth. As an Independant I stand with his views on the Perpetual War Agenda, The Federal Reserve, and Sound Money. The Two party system is a fraud, in that, it is one monster with two heads. Independants should ask Ron Paul to run on the Libertarian Ticket and “We the People” should take back our Government from the Criminals who are currently in Control.

    • Homesick Billy

      I don’t believe he can run under the Libertarian ticket at this point. The Libertarians have already chosen a party nominee. But why not run as an Independent or simply begin his own party? Call it the Liberation party. Call it the Constitutionalist Party. Call it whatever you want. Ron Paul supporters are going to back him and vote for him regardless of what name he uses to classify himself.

  • Polt

    One thing Ron Paul is not is a liar or “bullshitter”. I notice you do not back your slander up with any FACTS, Rocco, so I’m sure you know this as well. But facts and truth are not important to Establishment business as usual tools of the elites. Dr Paul would be winning if not for the cheating and statist media hatred of him.

  • Joe

    There’s a strange thing going on in the media. Despite the fact that Paul has won 11 states, they refuse to cover his gains or even to recognize his candidacy. It’s very much as though a higher authority (the 1%) have chosen their candidate and it’s not Paul. It goes to show how little the 1% cares for democracy.

  • C. McIntyre

    That 40% would be much higher if Americans would stop believing the lying mainstream media and begin thinking for themselves.