I am guessing that people believe he'd steal votes away from Republicans. I don't think that's true. Most of Ron Paul's supporters seem to be young computer nerds to whom "libertarianism" means the right to copy software and music freely over the Internet. They hate the war, the RIAA, and Microsoft. They are not people who have much in common with Republicans.

Gabbage makes a great point, but I wonder how often they vote, anyway.  I don't really have strong numbers on that, but I am guessing it isn't that much.

Of course, I didn't think that Nader-types voted a ton, either, but look at Florida.

I think Paul also attracts a lot of whack-jobs.  If he runs as a third-party candidate, the Unabombers-types meeting the computer nerds at the convention should be a ton of fun.

Gabbage nails it. Ron Paul's supporters live their entire lives online. They bombard every online poll they can find, they're all over most of the online social networks, they upload hundreds of Ron Paul vids to YouTube.

That said, there are probably 10x as many non-nerd adults who also spend a large amount of time online, who use Facebook and dozens of smaller niche online social network applications and community groups, and who could be targeted by intelligent online marketers on behalf of the other candidates. Granted, these people have children and mortgages and dull time jobs, but they're the ones who contribute the bulk of the $120b that's spent online in this country each year.

Ron Paul's online fund-raising success could be duplicated by Edwards, McCain, certainly Obama-- if they were to give it a serious effort.

Assuming that our side actually does want to be independent of the Hedge Hogs and other Moneyfiddlers...

Somebody really ought to be polling computer science majors on college campuses. I was completely ignorant of this phenomenon a year ago, but apparently the libertarian computer science major is a cliche, like the anti-war stoner or vegetarian.

Gabbage, 2 q's for you (or anyone else):

Will Ron Paul peel away a large number of McCain supporters in NH?

If Paul can show in NH and get some media mojo (I can see the Newsweek cover now), will his appeal start to extend outward toward the isolationist non-nerd "Reform Party" types who supported Buchanan and Perot?

IIRC Ron Paul has built a large following among enlisted soldiers. If he were to graft an anti-immigrant defend-the-border message onto his anti-neocon platform, it's not inconceivable that he could appeal to the Perot crowd. Not sure if that helps or hurts our side in the general. My guess is that would actually hurt Rudy, heir to the Neocon f-p legacy, more than anyone else.

Teplukhin2you, just jumping in to say I'm guessing that, given McCain's position on the war, it's hard for me to believe that anyone who would support Ron Paul would ever have planned to vote for McCain. The Reform Party types seem a much better bet, though...

True, ivanova, in the large, but there are enough NH voters for whom being fiesty is enough.  McCain, since he has been buried by the MSMemes*, has regained an outsider and fiesty status.  But Paul might be able to get some of those votes just because he is different.   Not a ton, maybe, but in a 4-person race it might be enough to do serious damage to the McCain comeback story.

Yeah, internet nerds tend to be very libertarian, though I am not sure a lot of them have very well-defined ideas on health care or schooling.   Very Ayn Rand-types.   I'm not friends with a lot of them.  

*too cute?  I don't think I like it.

I was thinking of the NH independents, who can vote in either primary. They were a huge factor IIUC in McCain's 2000 NH victory.

I don't care for Ron Paul personally, but don't underestimate the depth of his supporter's passion. He's running as much against the cynical, decadent Beltway media as he is his fellow Republicans.

Paul is tapping into a powerful undercurrent of rage in this country directed at this Administration and its media enablers. "Running against Washington" is the oldest trick in the book, but the blogosphere has sharpened popular criticism  of the government/media, enabling the emergence of a virulent strain of anti-establishmentarianism that may yield surprising results in 2008.

"Libertarianism" is was and ever shall be a joke. Case in point: here's our "libertarian" candidate's attitude toward state involvement in a woman's decision to bear a child:

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Bottom line, this guy is as nutty as Perot, without the billions, and less coherent than Buchanan. That said, he could do serious damage to us in 2008. He's a complete wild card, and if he takes up immigration as a core issue, he'd royally screw up each parties' calculations in the mountain states at a minimum.

Oops, posted too quickly - he's not a complete whackjob who favors for ex restricting interstate transport of minors for purposes of getting an abortion; he's just incoherent. Original point stands.

tep -- I agree t hat Ron Paul has some problem with being incoherent -- or at least consisten .... but many "liberals" and "conservatives" have the same problem, not just "libertarians".

I guess I find it extravagantly ridiculous, even by the degraded standards of US politics, to be against state intervention and anti-choice. Then again, I recall a time when W announced we'd have a "humble" foreign policy, and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Condi ridiculed the notion of using the US military for anything remotely related to nation building, in Bosnia or anywhere.

Then again, I remember a time when liberals stood up for free speech rights and fought, rather than try to impose, speech codes.

Full disclosure--I have a history with Ron Paul. In 1988 he was the guy who got my vote when I was faced with the impossible choice of Bush I with the Iran-Contra scam still smoking; and Dukakis.

I disagree with him about Iraq, but he still has a general philosophy I find tremendously appealing (and which doesn't reveal itself in a laundry list of votes on medtech issues).  I believe he strikes a chord MANY people will respond to given a chance, especially in places like NH. Live free or die!