Ron Paul Tied With Romney As Most Electable Republican

A new CNN poll once again debunks the myth that Ron Paul is not electable, showing the Congressman tied with Mitt Romney in a hypothetical head to head contest against Barack Obama.

“The poll also indicates Paul statistically tied with Obama, with the president at 48% and the longtime congressman at 46%,” reports CNN. “But according to the poll, the president is doing better against two other Republican presidential candidates. If Rick Santorum were the GOP nominee, Obama would hold a 51%-45% advantage over the former senator from Pennsylvania. And if Newt Gingrich faced off against the president, Obama would lead the former House speaker 52%-43%.”

Paul’s performance against Obama has improved compared to previous CNN polls taken over the course of the last year, illustrating his momentum.

The results are similar to a CBS poll last week which found that Paul was just one percentage point behind Obama in terms of a head to head run off. Aside from Mitt Romney, the poll showed that all the other Republican candidates would be beaten by Obama.

Numerous establishment Republicans have regurgitated the hoax that Paul is not electable in an effort to undermine his campaign, flagrantly ignoring polls which illustrate the exact opposite to be true.

The corporate media has also been instrumental in manufacturing doubts about Paul’s electability, dismissing him as “the buffer between Mitt Romney and the other candidates,” a claim Paul has soundly rejected.

“I’ve been electable,” Paul told CBS News last week. “I’ve won 12 elections already, and we’re doing quite well now. It’s amazing that I do so much better than those other candidates that are all electable. They’re all in fourth, fifth and sixth place, but they’re all electable, but I come in second or third, and all of the sudden people say, ‘Oh, he’s not electable.’ I don’t know how that adds up.”

As Mark R. Crovelli highlights, when Republicans decided to pick a “moderate” four years ago in the belief that such a choice would secure the White House, it didn’t end too well.

“Here’s a novel idea for Republicans: Vote based upon principle, not based upon whatever the bobble-headed morons in the media establishment say is strategically expedient,” he writes. “Your strategic pragmatism got you nowhere four years ago. Young people and independents in this country are not any more impressed with bland flip-floppers from Massachusetts than they are impressed with nut-job moderates from Arizona. These guys don’t even impress Republicans themselves. If they want a “moderate” who stands for war and socialized medicine, they might as well stick with the moderate, warmongering socialist they already have.”