Rasmussen: In a crappy looking poll, Ron Paul ties Obama

[Tender Branson]

39% Obama
38% Paul
14% "Some other candidate" *lulz*
  8% Undecided

Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.

In that same survey, 43% of likely primary voters expressed a favorable opinion of Paul, while slightly more (45%) registered an unfavorable view of him. This included 15% with a Very Favorable regard for Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, and 14% with a Very Unfavorable one.

Seventy-six percent (76%) of Tea Party members support Paul. Fifty-one percent (51%) of those who are not members of the grass roots smaller government movement opt for the president.

Paul leads Obama by 11 points among male voters but loses female voters to the incumbent by a similar margin. Voters under 30 prefer the president, while Paul edges the incumbent in all other age groups.

The president leads among voters who earn $60,000 or less a year, while the GOP candidate is ahead among those who make more.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/obama_39_paul_38

[Tender Branson]

Rasmussen is weird. They always have 10-20% for "another candidate" early in an election cycle and then 2 weeks before the general election "another candidate" has just 2-3% anymore.

It would be good for them if they just leave "another candidate" out at this point and push the leaners harder.

In no recent election has a generic other candidate ever gotten 14%. These people would rather stay at home than voting for an obscure Green Party of Libertarian candidate etc.

[tpfkaw]

In this case it might make sense that "some other candidate" is so high (angry neocons).

[Rowan]

I'd vote for another candidate if Paul was the nominee.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

In this case it might make sense that "some other candidate" is so high (angry neocons).

Eh, most Republicans are just being like Hillary supporters and would probably just hold their noses and vote Paul if he won. Some wouldn't, but they are aren't an especially large demographic, since there are Democrats who would be voting Republican based on foreign policy/drug laws.

What really makes the difference is that all the other Republicans lose indies to Obama while Paul wins them by 10%. If he won the nomination and that continued, he would crush Obama easily.

[Zarn]

In this case it might make sense that "some other candidate" is so high (angry neocons).

Eh, most Republicans are just being like Hillary supporters and would probably just hold their noses and vote Paul if he won. Some wouldn't, but they are aren't an especially large demographic, since there are Democrats who would be voting Republican based on foreign policy/drug laws.

What really makes the difference is that all the other Republicans lose indies to Obama while Paul wins them by 10%. If he won the nomination and that continued, he would crush Obama easily.

That's exactly what Paul supporters have been trying to tell other Republicans. It does not seep through. They think Romney and Perry can somehow pull more voters out of their own rear ends.

[TheGlobalizer]

In this case it might make sense that "some other candidate" is so high (angry neocons).

Eh, most Republicans are just being like Hillary supporters and would probably just hold their noses and vote Paul if he won. Some wouldn't, but they are aren't an especially large demographic, since there are Democrats who would be voting Republican based on foreign policy/drug laws.

What really makes the difference is that all the other Republicans lose indies to Obama while Paul wins them by 10%. If he won the nomination and that continued, he would crush Obama easily.

Dr. No or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Liberty