If Ron Paul has “zero chance of beating Obama in 2012”, then Donald Trump has even less. No one wants a ‘Comb-Over in Chief’ to lead their nation. In 2008 Ron Paul brought real debate to the real issues, and while the other candidates were busy slinging mud, and debating on the technicalities of their foreign policy ideals, Ron Paul wanted to debate the ideas of interventionism vs. noninterventionism.
It comes as no surprise to me that the billionaires and the politicians and pundits tucked deep in the hip pockets of Fox News take as many jabs at Ron Paul as possible – they’re afraid of him.
In reality, the Texas Congressman has a better chance than Republican darling Sarah Palin
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, February 11, 2011
Prospective presidential candidate Donald Trump caused a sensation at the start of yesterday’s CPAC event when he dismissed Ron Paul’s chances of beating Obama in 2012, saying the Texas Congressman had “zero chance” of winning the election.
“By the way, Ron Paul cannot get elected, I’m sorry to tell you,” Trump told the CPAC crowd, to a chorus of both boos and applause.
“I like Ron Paul, I think he’s a good guy, but honestly I think he has zero chance of getting elected, you have to win an election,” the billionaire socialite added.
In actual fact, the Texas Congressman has a greater chance of beating Obama in 2012 than someone who the Republican establishment is likely to throw their weight behind next year – Sarah Palin.
A Rasmussen poll released Monday showed that Paul leads Palin in being able to build a campaign that would prevent Obama from securing a second term. The poll shows that in these early stages, Ron Paul would poll 35% of votes to Obama’s 44%, where as Sarah Palin would attract 38% to an Obama count of 49%.
The figures mean that at this time the Texas Congressman would score 2% more of the overall vote than the former governor of Alaska.
Those numbers are also based on the fact that Obama is still riding high on a recent 15 point bounce in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings, a lead that is sure to subside as the election nears. Once Paul is able to mobilize his hugely effective grass roots base, which outstrips anything the likes of Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Mike Huckabee can call upon, a 9 point deficit is far from insurmountable.
Indeed, before the Tucson shootings when Obama was at one of the lowest ebbs of his popular approval, a YouGov/Polimetrix study found that establishment Republican candidates like Palin, Gingrich and Romney were all losing popularity at a similar pace to the president. Only Ron Paul has bucked this trend.
In addition, an April 2010 Rasmussen survey found that a hypothetical 2012 election race between president Obama and Texas Congressman Ron Paul would result in an almost dead heat, with Obama just one per cent ahead.
Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 will only be motivated to do so again if Republicans put forward a compromised candidate who can easily be characterized as George W. Bush 2.0. If Ron Paul runs against Obama, huge numbers of Democrats will take a back seat, and some may even switch allegiances, such is the profound sense of betrayal many liberals now feel towards Obama’s completely unfulfilled promises of hope and change.
Donald Trump is completely wrong in his assertion that Paul has “zero chance” of beating Obama. Indeed, once the establishment media gets its teeth into the likes of Palin, Romney, Gingrich and indeed Trump himself, their compromised backgrounds will almost guarantee Obama the victory, whereas Paul’s squeaky clean track record cannot be as easily distorted.
By the time the campaign season is in full swing, and the mud begins to stick to the names of establishment Republican candidates, Ron Paul may be the only contender who can beat Obama in 2012.