If Paul wins in IA/NH, SC and FL voters have to take him seriously. He's a poor fit for FL (he does worst among seniors) but he could be competitive in SC with the IA/NH bumps. If he places in those two states, I think it's a two-person horserace, him and the SC/FL winner (likely to be the same person - guessing Romney, expecting a Gingrich fade due to the ethics/infidelity/lobbyist attacks).
That Paul is in the ballgame in IA is pretty telling, as his libertarian politics are not generally a great fit for the state. (He's a better fit for coastal Republicans and the mountain west generally.) He's built a great ground game in IA, and it looks like he's prepping for the long haul in other states (he's opening offices all over the place).
Also, a couple of fine print notes:
1. Paul is +8 among strong commits.
2. Paul wins among voters who are most concerned about foreign policy and national security.
3. Paul's weakest scores are on electability. That may change as his polling puts him in the horserace. Could create significant momentum.
Yeah, this scenario might rile up the Paultards, but they might be right.
Where in SC do you see Paul catching on? The socially-conservative, evangelical upcountry? OR the national-security industry dominated, hawkish lowcountry?
Of those two, more the evangelicals. They have no non-laughable candidate, and while Paul is quirky he's not a total douchebag like the other options. I'm not saying he dominates in either place, but I think he's hitting a sweet spot that other candidates can't quite find.
If you read what I said, the subtext is that SC and FL are not good for him. I just think that SC is softer than FL, where I would consider the most mainstream candidate to be the prohibitive favorite. Remember, the right-wingers are willing to go unconventional, and with no untarnished option available among the usual suspects, Paul could be the "well, I haven't heard really nasty sh** about him" candidate.
