I am amongst those who suspect Paul's support is well overstated by his internet following.
I think that happens nowadays. You could have said the same of Howard Dean. I think until the world wide web either supplants, or becomes as ubiquitous as, the old-fashioned telephone device, such observations may be made. I'd even be willing to venture the hypothesis that if you had the data to peruse, you'd find that in the early days of telephone service there would have been candidates whose popularity was overstated by those that only depended upon telephone conversations to determine a candidate's following. Not sure that applies to the rise of television and printed media, though, because unlike telephone and internet, they are one-way communication devices. Certainly disequilibrium phenomena are hardest to pin down, so don't use the internet to figure out who's on top till a generation or so has passed.
But I did notice that Paul got much applause at the debate. I assume it comes from unaffiliated voters. In states with open or modified open primaries, that effect should not be discounted. It may also come from old-school rightists who haven't jumped on the imperialistic bandwagon. That said, I think he's too idealistic to have rather broad appeal. Just as Kucinich is too idealistic to have rather broad appeal. I do respect ther respective purisms, but I also recognize that idealism, whether it manifests itself as Rightist perfect policy or Leftist perfect policy is usually disastrous. I always hate to admit this, since I'm so down on the triangulators and pragmatists, but in fact even I see the folly in rallying behind such unyielding idealism, whether of Kucinich's variety or Paul's.
You never know about these things, though. He could be drafted by one of the smaller parties to the right of the GOP, particular the anti-war conservatives and arch-federalists. We hear so much about Democrats and Republicans all the time. Who does the David/JohnDibble/MaC crowd like for their candidate? Is Paul a possibility? Would he accept such an invitation? If so, would the republicans split? Would they lose? Would the republicans then spin it the way Bush41 did when he lost, claiming it was all Perot's fault, and like the algore folks did when they refused to admit algore defeated algore? All these are intriguing questions. Somebody with a real crystal ball could make a killing in the stock market. Too bad we're so mean to the arabs. I hear they have genies, and genies can predict the future. Can't they? Gotta get me one of those.
