For all of those in the "liberty movement", let that sink in for one second.
Ron Paul beats Barack Obama in a general election if it were held today, as determined by a reputable, often cited by the "mainstream media", polling agency.
Nice job people, The Bank is in trouble, and you know Ron Paul counts on his supporters to make it happen. They've responded in Colorado by doing sign-bombs and other local outreach, on their own without campaign input, proving that organizing through Facebook and Meetup.com really can put a message in front of John Q. Public.
It's absolutely wonderful how many are rediscovering what it means to call themselves "free"; namely that they also have to allow their neighbors to be free and not bind them (with the threat of force) to the same ideas and beliefs they hold themselves.
But, back on topic, the polling data, a 2,462 count sample, shows he and Mitt Romney as the most favorable choices, the "top-tier" if you will, in the running to make Obama a one-term President. Polling strongly among self-described "conservatives", and the highest among the GOP candidates with those who describe themselves as "liberal".
Thereby shattering the false left/right political paradigm.
Though not as powerful within the GOP primary position, his trend has been steadily rising, mostly bouyied by those identifying as "independent" or "liberal" what he may lack in evangelical support.
But that is not what you are hearing on the "Spin Cycle" now, is it? The poll's own analysis skips over Paul and mentions first and third.
Only those who support a fiat currency, unlimited aggressive foreign wars, and the domestic drug war will "have a chance" to win the Presidency according to the $3,000 suits presented on TV.
However, those are all largely unpopular views in the general electorate, mostly thanks to libertarians, (still) anti-war liberals, sound money advocates, and active duty military putting their money where their mouth is and putting Ron Paul on the map.
And increasingly so.
Evidenced by those very same "establishment" Republican nominees taking a piece of the succulent Ron Paul "liberty pie", and then mixing it with their own statist fecal pie; attempting to sell you bull, never intending to act on their rhetoric.
But all kidding aside, this new data shows a steady climb to the top of the heap for Dr. Paul...you know, if winning is the goal for the GOP they might take notice.
Though if you listen to Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump, or Rush Limbaugh, you'd be led to believe that the markets would implode and Rocky Mountains shift if someone like Ron Paul were elected President.
Someone who has said openly that he would bring the troops home immediately, and do everything within his power to abolish the income tax, costly drug war, and dedicated to ending the (not)Federal Reserve and the debasement of our currency.
Which all begs one simple question:
Could the establishment within the GOP possibly prefer an Obama second-term to Ron Paul and his popular ideas of ending the Fed and bringing our warrior neighbors home immediately?
Most registered Libertarians might answer with a simple 'Of course, that's why I'm a Libertarian'.
But it goes deeper than that, because many not "falling in line" with the establishment of the GOP could, in our hypothetical conversation, simply retort to a registered Libertarian in closed primaries with something to the effect of; 'You must prefer an Obama second-term to Ron Paul, you didn't even vote to get him to the general'.
In Colorado, a caucus state, winning hearts and minds face-to-face sounds awfully tempting, even if for only one last time.