Poll: Ron Paul 2012

Check out the updated Ron Paul 2012 Overview

Should Ron Paul run for President in 2012?

This poll is now closed. It was open from Oct. 27 – Nov. 16, 2009 and attracted 9,312 voters. The results are displayed below.

Should Ron Paul run for President in 2012?

  • Yes. (94%, 8,727 Votes)
  • It depends. (explain below) (3%, 267 Votes)
  • No. (3%, 259 Votes)
  • I don’t know. (0%, 59 Votes)

Total Voters: 9,312

Check out the updated Ron Paul 2012 Overview


  • sonia martin

    Can anyone win an election if they are not Republican or Democrat?
    I would hate for someone to run independent that Republican supporters would be drawn away from the Republican party and let the Democrats do more damage to the country for another year….
    having said that, if he ran independently, get someone really, really good for a vice president and if money speaks so loud, probably the democrats and republicans could out-money us, but hey,
    those that really would like to send a message to the Republicans and Democrats, might just send the money for the candinancy. Tell everybody what it will cost, give us a break-down and let us go to work — Some may give pennies from heaven, we might have to have bake-sales and those things since Obama is taxing us to death – but lay it out there and let your supporters know…together we can flood the internet, print out a poster or phamplet from the computer that we can hang on neighbors doors – have a poster contest at the highschools across the nation and the winner gets
    $5,000 scholarship, we can take a caravan to Washington D.C., Get us the facts, and let us at ’em. We’ll have a Boston T. Party the Republicans and Democrats won’t soon forget. Somebody tell Paul for me.

  • Bob Murray

    Yes only as a last resort. Rather have him supporting and cheering and advising a more charismatic candidate perhaps currently not known or certainly not clear. That is if he plans to support a Republican platform. If not, then the only way to go is Independent – perhaps Paul/Palin. His message has got to be broadcast all over the nation in well known and acceptable locations and places and by the same kind of speakers. In his case, the man’s message is by far and away more saleable than the man.

    • Mildearth

      How is his message more “saleable” than the man when you are referring to Congressman Paul? He has the best voting record in all of the government! That should speak loudly about the man that he is. His voting record means that he doesn’t say one thing and then vote another or vote one way and then switch only because of some minor provision added. He votes by the law of the constitution and knows the difference between a helpful government and a government of fraud.

      I find it weird that so many people posting here do post some slightly ignorant ideas though I guess I’m aloud to be wrong as well. Seems this didn’t happen so much during the election but only after when others may have come to see the light but haven’t seen all of it yet.

  • Bill

    He should definitely run, but as an Independent or Libertarian. It would help raise awareness of just what “Libertarian” means (many folks think it’s another word for “liberal”) and enable the support he enjoys to be seen in the numbers of the general election. Increasing support for third party candidates is one of the messages we can send to the establishment that they are out of sync with what America is supposed to be.

    • Georg O.P. Eschert

      Yes he should,
      but as an Independent or Libertarian !
      Fully agree with Bill.
      73 George

      • Hoping Ron Paul will run as a 3rd party isn’t going to happen. He’s got a name as DR. NO within the Republican party. If you don’t want him to win… stay Independent/Libertarian/Green Party, whatever. Without your support to change the Republican party from the inside, Ron Paul’s chances of winning aren’t as strong. What you need to do is become Republican so we can get Ron Paul elected, then he can pick Independents, Libertarians, and Green Party onto his cabinet. Then we’ll have Ron Paul to help with your agenda. Otherwise, you’re just voting in the wind.

  • Bryan

    Ron Paul is a physician and takes very good care of his own health! Skinny is better than a bloated cardiac arrest waiting to happen! I just lost a friend 41 years old who was pushing 420! Vote for Paul if you want to free the chains that bind you! He is a TRUE patriot without question! Get these bozos out of our white house. Time to take our country back.. let Ron lead the way to freedom for all humanity!

  • JT Shocker

    I believe that Ron Paul should run as an Independant as his views represent a large portion of the US population however I don’t believe he can win the nomination of the Republican party. I think if Ron runs as an Independant he will garner such a large portion of the vote that even if he is not getting enough of the vote to win the Presidency he would be able to use his support to negotiate with the Republican party to get many of his ideas included in the party platform and even negotiate being the Vice President. In this position he would be able to help take the Republican party back from the current leaders that have forgotten conservative principals.

  • Todd

    Yes, but only if he runs as a third party candidate (Libertarian or Independent). There has been no better time to get a legit third party option up-and-running with the Reps and Dems in bed with each other – nothing gets done and the people of this nation are sick of it.

  • Dr. V

    Ron Paul is one of the few statesmen in Congress. That being said, I watched the Republican party boys sideline him in the debates last election. He would have beat Obama or Hillary with his intellect, candor, and experience… but they don’t want that. McCain’s pick (or go-along with the party pick) of that idiot Palin lost him the election. Both parties want another corporatzi Majordomo like Bush and what we have now with Obama, bowing and scraping to the big finance, big pharma, lobbyists and the unconstitutional FED. I’m a registered independent and everyone I know, even republicans, believe that it’s time for a third party to take America back. The two parties have become the WH*RES of Washington and they like the pay to play system that they created.

    • Dr.V,would it not be more correct to say that Obama simply does what he was chosen and groomed to do by the plutocrates? Or do you believe that Hilary Clinton or John McCain would have been less major-domo for the plutocrate household if one of them had been “elected”?

  • Jim

    I refuse to vote for a democrat or republican canidate unless there is not a third party canidate. Ron Paul should run on a third party ticket.

    • Mildearth

      The problem with running 3rd party as Congressman Paul has pointed out many times is that each state has different rules for applying to go on the ballots and it requires a lot of time and a lot of money and pretty much counts you out of the debates which then cuts you out of the election process. I knew there was four other candidates that were going to be options for me on election day but many others just had thoughts of two and a decision of one. I know the mainstream doesn’t cover Congressman Paul very well or they haven’t in the past and the only real reason he’s been getting attention is because what he had been predicting will happen is happening. You can find him on myspace and favorite his blog and learn so much more about what he’s working on for the people. He may be 74 but he runs like he’s 34 so if you’re on board then keep up!

  • Mr. Paul should give it a go: Only if his runing mate is SARA. that
    way should Mr. Paul die in office we’d loose a ACE and gain 4Ace

    In God We Trust

    A Montanan and I’m armed and know how to use each one too.

  • Len Lonehood

    bring back my America

  • Yes Mr. Paul should give it a go provided Sara his V.P. (just in case) remember how young’ns said about John MCain too old so
    should Mr. Paul die in office lets cover or Ace with a 4 Ace replacement…


    • Mildearth

      And the problem was we didn’t think that Palin was fit for the position should McCain not make it.

      Congressman Paul is a much healthier and smarter man that would not make such a lame choice for Vice President.

      • Jones


        This may sound naive but I ask anyway: if a middle type of party is needed, that represents the interests and view of a growing group of dissenters or rejected opinions from the traditional parties, including politicians, what are the main obstacles that keep a third official party from being functional?

        If a short critical list is made and addressed, why is it that the forecast is that it will not work? It does not make sense.

        Or is it that the constitution has a built in guard to keep a two party system? If so, the situation today is calling for a need to add to that.

        The mid party will be like a needed buffer in a system of two opposite charges in permanent disagreement. It will be open to any dissenters or rejected people that agree with a platform of ideas fixed to work in people’s best interest, or the needs of the time for the masses.

        The excuse of billions needed for a campaign seems weird. In that case people should invest in the media and have a saying, or make a separate one that gets to everyone, in addition to the internet.

        The whole situation is making the government and leadership look terrible, so it should be in their best interest to facilitate something like that, raher than interfere with it.

  • San Antonio Steve

    Ron Paul should NOT run for president of the uS in 2012. We need him to be president of the republic of Texas when Texas seceeds from the uS in 2010.

    • David Fernandez

      If that happens, I’m moving to Texas!

    • Amen.

  • Clive

    I think it’s important for Ron Paul to distance himself from the Republican Party—once and for all! Whether or not he runs for President in 2012 is another matter, but first he has to stop imagining that the Republican Party is changeable—it isn’t. Whenever they’ve had their chances in the past to really make a difference they have always blown it—and next time will be no different. Time is fast running out—and its time not well spent in trying to patch up a corrupt institution. Third parties have always had a tough time, but to compromise in order to run within a corrupt two party system is not an option for a man of honour who wants to lead a revolution. Something new is necessary; something new is possible—and sufficient people may soon be ready to make a difference as well. Such people will want the freshness of something new, not the stench of something that is old and corrupt. In addition to all of this, the Libertarian movement needs to stop splintering itself into smaller and smaller ineffectual units. The house is on fire and its time we all woke up before the Republic is lost forever!

    • Mark

      I agree with Clive. There is little difference in Democrates and Republicans…both are corrupt and both, at varying speeds, have progressively taken the US furhter and further from the constituion. Ron Paul, like Pat Buchanan, has no chance in the GOP. With every show of support from the voters they are ignored or destroyed…same goes for the “mainstream” “conservative” talk show elite that are, generally, GOP talking heads. An alliance w/Palin may be beneficial as she will be destroyed by the GOP and doesn’t stand a chance at getting the Republican nomination. Libertarians must unit and discussions w/other parties such as the Constitutionalists, and Alan Keyes (Christian party?) for any hope of survival for the republic.

    • He’s a 12 term Republican. How well do you think his district would feel about him switching sides. I think you should give him a little more credit on knowing how the current political system works. Trust the man… he knows what he’s doing.

  • Greg

    Either DO something or shut the hell up. I am sick to death of all these politians screaming “imma fix things” and here is where we are. Ron Paul: Either put up or shut up….period.

  • Thomas Meyers

    Mr. Ron Paul, If you can HOLD true TO your domestic agenda, and begin once again to swing the pendilium the other way back to smaller government, more conservative fiscally, with a STRONGER DEFENCE, uphold the family values and traditions, begin to DE-EUROPE-ANIZE our Nation, and most importantly restore the TRUST of the People of Israel, that we as a nation, against the judgment of the rest of the world, will stand with the Jewish State against terrorist of any kind instead of bow at their feet, and this Nation, that has in times past, seen the hand of God move through it’s people will once again have the favor of God on it’s side. Let the people be led by the people! Not just ONE mans opinion!
    Thanks, END THE FED
    Tom Meyers

    • AMEN!, Brother. Well said!

    • Mildearth

      And we will act in terrorist ways against any we label as terrorist for we are the great masters of the world…

      Sorry but I don’t agree with you about how we should just blindly side with Israel against anyone labeled as a terrorist or as I get the impression you are leaning more towards anyone that is not christian or jew.

      If you knew what Congressman Paul would probably say it would be to get out of all those countries and if they have disputes then let them dispute and we would just prefer to trade and be happy without the conflict of a war. G.W. should have just said we are going to World War 3 instead of War on terror, it’s the same damn thing!

  • Ramsey Clark once said: “We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.”
    Hence, unless the US citizens wake up and realize the significance of this sad fact stated by Mr. Clark, Ron Paul can per se never become President.

    • Mark

      Brandulph, in fact we are not, nor were we ever, a democracy. The founders understood that democracies eventually were taken over by tyrants and were viable only for short periods of time, thus they set up a representative democracy or a Republic, with safe guards against rule by a majority w/o constitutional consideration. However, as we have seen since the 1800’s, the constitution can be ignored and changed w/o imput from voters. It is the job of the people (we) to stop the traders.

      • sean

        you obviously don’t know what a republic is.. A republic is a type of a representative democracy. The only difference between a republic and any other type of representative democracy in the world, is that we have a head of state instead of a monarch.

        yes we have done great harm to the constitution but that doesn’t undermine the principles of a republic form of government.

        “In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy[6], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as “republicans”. In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.” – wiki

        • “The only difference between a republic and any other type of representative democracy in the world, is that we have a head of state instead of a monarch.” Hmmm… sean, I suggest you spend a few munites with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchies 🙂 Also read my answer to Mark of October 28, 2009 at 9:05 pm

      • I am aware of the US democracy being a “representative democracy” and not a “direct democracy”, and I have no doubt about Ramsay Clark also being aware of that when he uttered his statement quored. 🙂 That however, does not change the reality and significance of what Mr. Clark said. You do live in a plutocracy, and who ever you vote for, will be a person groomed and chosen for the race by the plutocrates, i.e. the tyrants who have taken over the US… and!… by and large also the EU.:-)

        • sean

          i agree..

          • Jones

            The reality is that people with power can do a lot of damage without even looking guilty or being caught, in any system. I do think so.

            So a representative democracy should work better for a larger population. But one has to assume that people can at least try their best to be honest and productive for what is needed. But is not happening for some reason, and that reason has been labeled ‘corruption’.

            So we are left to question the reasons for that corruption so that one can elect better.

            I was wondering how many bills have been written in the last decades, and out of those which ones are really addressing the problems, or having any good results. Or actually being discussed.

            What I perceive is that the leadership is faulting the population for not being better, so it’s fair for the people to question their work method and their results. Particularly when they are keeping most of ‘the produce’.

            Hopes and trust have been shattered. Now what?

  • pete

    I would love to see Ron Paul run as a Libertarian, because that is what he is. I also hope the Republican Party stands down in 2012 for Dr Ron Paul.

  • JL in WV

    I would love to see an independent run for president. The 2 party system in this country is broken. I would have to question his age though. My other question is how does he get media attention? The mass media in this country did not give him fair coverage last time and I don’t think it would be better if he ran again. Jesse Ventura is my guy!

  • Al Martinez

    I have hundreds of reasons to vote for this blessed man, but to simplify it for the 3%ers out there who voted no, I state the following:


    One thing I’d like to stress. I vote intelligent conservative, not plain old Republican because most of them are liberal at heart, thank you Mr. McCain, you never wanted the job and it was too obvious.

  • Of course Ron Paul will win a yes in this poll, it’s his website. I love Ron Paul, and that’s coming from an anarcho-socialist like me! Libertarianism is a far more achievable goal than social anarchism, so I’ll take it. We need politicians to represent the people, and as long as that happens, I will be content.

    And I know that people reading this may think less of me because of my views, but please know what my views entail before you bash me for them. I like the idea of government, but only government that does not see itself as permanent or overpowering of the people. The people need to be the government.

    • Thanks for your comments, Tony. A government that is “cemented” and/or “overpowering” usually gets populated by users and criminals who see themselves as “rulers”. I believe we have that already and we NEED to change it.

      People with opposing views need to get together instead of keeping their votes cast to those who “tout” their philolophy but NEVER or SELDOM vote/pass laws that way.

      I’m with you all the way, Tony. The only “change” we need is a government that will reflect not only what people think and want, but should strike a balance so no one is left out of our government. Dissenting views should be held in respect to see how they can be adapted to serve “we the people”.