I would like to take this moment to remind people that there is still voting to come.

That's just so unfair.

***

The people who voted for Paul seem to be collectively unclear about who they voted for - except that he won the under 40's, as you'd expect. Apart from that, 33% of the self-defined liberals voted for him (biggest share of them), while 38% of the conservatives went for him (fewer than Mittens but more than Santorum and far more than anyone else).

On the other hand, the people who voted for Mittens seem every bit as confused. But Mitt is a famous flip-flopper, while Paul is supposed to be consistent - if we could just decide what he consistently is.

You'd have to say it was a great showing for an old Bircher, except that half his fans either won't believe that he ever was one or just don't know what it means.

I would like to take this moment to remind people that there is still voting to come.

Take two.

Suppose Mitt sticks to, say, 38% of the vote throughout the proportional delegate states, doesn't sweep the winner-take-all states, and Paul holds firm at 20 to 25%.

In that scenario, Mitt could very well go into the convention with, say, 46%, and Paul could have 16 or 20%. He'd be in a position to deliver enough of them to put Mitt over the top - but what would his price be? A couple of cabinet slots? Rand for VP? 29 planks in the platform? Or just the pleasure of watching Mitt sweat...

(To forestall an objection: sure, Frothy or Newt could wind up with 5%, but there's no way they could release them and deliver them in a block to Mittens. Not considering who they'd be.)

You must own some vintage Batman to mistake Gingrich for the Caped Crusader. The problem with the GOP is they don't know much about economics and it shows. However, there are two things in their favor: One, the Democrats are just as clueless, and, two, they know it's not the voting that counts, but the vote counting.
It's ironic but Obama owes his presidency to Bush and now the next president will owe a lot to Obama's many errors in judgment.

Ron Paul has made too many racist comments and is supported by too many stormfront.org people to be a serious candidate. He could however bring the Klan vote back to the democratic party where it belongs.

If Ron Paul keeps picking up strong results, you've gotta put money on the likelihood of a third-party run by Paul once Romney's unassailable (which won't be long). It wouldn't be much of a delusion, by Paul standards, to feel that he absolutely owes it to supporters to stand as an independent.

Paul running as an indy would put his son into a bit of a quandry. Could make for an uncomfortable Thanksgiving.

Well, that will certainly be the threat - both Ron and Rand have been tellingly coy about it. "Here's the list, Mitt. Sign here, or we'll see how it goes in November." But what would he take to not do it?

surgeon general

Ron Paul could sweep the southern states.

Really? So little?

I was thinking more like, Rand for VP.

Just out of curiosity, if Ron Paul ran as an independent, how much support might he garner from disenfranchised ex-Obama supporters?

I know quite a few people back in the States who voted for Obama in 2008, and will NOT vote for him again.

I used to live in Seattle, and Ron Paul is VERY popular out west.

In fact I think in 2008, he came second to John McCain in Washington state. And the difference in their vote percentage, wasn't that large.

I'd put money you won't see Ron Paul as an independent. He has a lot more swing keeping inside the Republican tent, and he also has a personal stake in seeing Rand Paul make a Presidential run in the future, which he'd poison the well for if he ran as an independent.

no. Rand Paul is too green and without enough name recognition. I'd guess a southern or midwestern governor. Rubio perhaps - checks the Hispanic box but I don't think quite the southern box despite being from Florida. Also, as I've seen Rubio interviewed he still seems green to me. Mitch Daniels would be an interesting choice if his Missus would go for it.

Raven. Do you really think so? The SC polls seem to indicate not.

Paul took 30% of the independents tonight. Huntsman took 23%, and freaking Romney took 32%. Of the independents. More than Paul. More than Huntsman. Anybody who can tell you what that means can also pick the next six winners at Aquaduct.

Dog, I wasn't talking about what the party wants. I'm talking about Ron's price for not running on a third party ticket.

I Think some people do not fully understand the anger of average Americans. While Ron Paul may have some rather peculiar ideas, he also stands for(or against) many of the issues that we are just plain sick and tired of. The MIC's control of the government that has led us into one war after another, the pharmaceutical and insurance companies controlling our health choices, the news agencies being controlled by so few, or the religious right dogma trying to force its way into our education system are just some of the reasons that the average American feels more and more helpless in having a say in their own lives. The country that supposedly stands for freedom has just passed the NDAA to supplement the patriot act into further elimination of our freedom while the multinational corporations outsource precious jobs at record rates. The illusion of a two party system has become abundantly clear to far more people than ever before. So the thing is, while the establishment vies to continue the same ole song and dance, Ron Paul wants what he actually believes is best for the country. Rather that is true or not is hard to tell, but at least honesty is a good start.

No, not really. Well he could pick up Texas. I don't see Texas breaking for Mittens.

I just really cannot stand Mitt Romney. But then again I actually think Obama would have an easier time beating Romney than Paul. I think Ron Paul poses a threat to both mainstream parties.

But as an American living outside the USA (I live in Scotland) I don't have a constant pulse of the political sentiment over there at this time.

I was an avid Obama supporter (I worked on his campaign over here in the UK). But I have become so disillusioned with him over the last few years, that I am not entirely sure I would support him again. Not that it matters greatly, as an absentee voter. But I can't help I am not unique in my feelings.

NF. He's probably got a card to play; a face card but not an ace. I suspect they're smart enough to play it well and not overreach.

...at least honesty is a good start.

Are you recpmmending The Ron Paul Survival Kit to us, then? After all, it comes in an honest World War II U.S. Army ammo holder...

You are correct, the disillusionment of Obama is felt far and wide by many democrats. I would say at least half are already willing to vote for Paul. However its just Paul, no other republican is even in the picture.

Maybe, and it's for sure that pursuing this won't get us anywhere. But if he wouldn't have an ace in the circumstances I described, I can't imagine who would.

At this point the question of what happens when Paul faces some genuine scrutiny is up for grabs. I think I know but I can't think of any reason for you (or Katgirl, say) to believe me.

Note that Paul is presently 4th in the SC polls on RCP after Romney, Santorum and Gingrich, with ten days for him to try to change that. Not much time. Not an ace. But perhaps he gets a second draw. They're still in the deck. Romney apparently hasn't drawn one yet, though he's sitting on a decent pair.

Please, let the entertainment continue. Other reality shows will wither and die. This one is free, fabulous, and frightening.

The beauty of the NH Primary is that our state is so small that candidates have the opportunity to speak directly to the people without the filter of the media; full ideas, not sound bites or sentences taken out of context; no pundits who, rather than analyzing a candidate's positions on the issues, are more like odds makers in a horse race.

Ron Paul's second place finish signifies that the media influence may be disintegrating, a very good thing for our democracy, I think. Labeled as a looney bin or crazy person by many articles and by all stories as a candidate who cannot win, and mostly ignored, Paul's vote here in New Hampshire says that he and his supporters aren't as looney as we have been told. I wonder what the vote would have beem if Mr. Paul had not been ignored, ridiculed, and dismissed by the media, as happened to Dennis Kucinich in the last Democratic primary.

Kudos to the Ron Paul supporters who worked very hard to get this far. The ones I have talked to are thoughtful and knowledgeable. The NH Primary worked because in this state the voters can bypass the nearly useless media and hear directly from the candidates.

Dog, ten days in South Carolina is an eternity. Why, in 2000, John McCain went there, met a woman, fell in love and fathered a child in way under ten days - while, simultaneously, George W. Bush went from chopped liver to the White House. South Carolina is special, and Newt, in particular, has promised us a show.

I am no Paul supporter. The whole Libertarian concept strikes me as bizarre. I just think Obama has been a huge disappointment as a President (I think what finally did for me was the signing of NDAA into law). I happen to believe many people are sick and tired of the status quo in American politics.

Personally, I would love to see someone like Dennis Kucinich be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. But that poor man can't even get invited to all the debates, never mind trying to gather enough votes to become a serious contender. (I am referring to the 2008 election cycle)

I just don't think mainstream politicians are working in the USA. I am sure as someone who lives there you can see how grave the problems are in America.

I feel a bit sorry for the South Carolinians. They'll just have to keep the TV and radios turned off to keep from going insane. They must worry they'll never escape purgatory for that little incident at Fort Sumter.

It's a two horse race: Romney and Paul. It was before Iowa.

And Paul is the only one that will challenge Obama. Romney and Obama's biggest donors are both Goldman Sachs. Change? Who bought that?

Suckers.

One thing we, and essentially the media has learned, is that their influence is waning.
The ignorance or negative press have failed.
Ron Paul is winning hearts and minds.

Are we allowed to talk about him now?

I thought the explicit Guardian policy was to write him out of history...

There is no confusion. A strong adhereance to constitutional principles calls to anyone who believes in the rule of law and the preservation of liberty. Democrats as "liberals" and Republicans as "conservatives" are two sides of the same big spending coin and A LOT of people are waking up to the fact that the fastest way to lose liberty is through the corruption of money whether it's through big government spending (generally Democrats) or big business pandering (generally Republicans). More and more, though, any distinction between the two parties has been completely blurred with both parties contributing in every way to our oppressive debt and regulations. Ron Paul is the only candidate who not only has personal principles, but political principles with a firm allegiance to what this country was founded on. He separates his personal beliefs from his political duties and commits to the good of the nation through the guidance of The Constitution. Ron Paul 2012!

I see...Ron 'where did this rascist shit come from' Paul.

He's vile enough with his peculiar determinist Randian views on getting rid of healthcare and social security which even Libertarians regard as a 'sick abomination' of their creed.

It's pitful that so many from the 'Left' have been impressed by this piece fo shit.

Ron Paul is winning hearts and minds.

By doing what?

Telling poor Americans they desrve their poverty?

Another media washout there, Chicken Little (Theskysgoneout)! Please stop throwing random generalizations out there and actually provide a coherent point to discuss. Paul has disavowed the comments in his newsletter from over twenty years ago and his record speaks for itself in terms of any notion of racism. In reality, there were very few racist comments even when taken out of context (that were likely from the same article), but I would love to see a link to an actual document with the full quotes for us to review instead of blogger after blogger thinking they have another unique quote from some mysterious source.

There is another dimension to Paul's success, and one that needs analysis. How much of his vote came from his anti-interventionist stance?
If people voted for him for that reason then the US may well draw in its horns about Iran. It all depends how Obama's advisers interpret the vote.

Is it Guardian policy to call the Republicans the GOP, or is it just a fashion that has taken hold because it makes you feel cool and American?

The fact that Paul is a viable political candidate on the national stage is testimony to how confused and unstable American politics has become. The most generous thing that can be said about him is that he is a crank, but a lot worse than that can be said.

Anyone who takes him seriously - aside from those who regard him as seriously dangerous - is not thinking as an informed adult.

Yesterday I heard Ron Paul on TV for a few minutes. He seems to be able to think and to argue for himself. Beyond that, what he was saying was simply reasonable.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Meanwhile, after yesterday's pretend break, we're back to Huntsman is this, Paul is that, Santorum is the other... etc., ad nauseum. If you're still looking for a name for this blog, you could do worse than A Broken Record.

Anyone who takes him seriously - aside from those who regard him as seriously dangerous - is not thinking as an informed adult.

Ain't that the truth! Given that the information (lies, propaganda, spin) comes from the powers that be, via the media.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that should be considered, well unless you want a war with Iran?
At first I didn't quite believe that Obama and the establishment would go to war with Iran but then everything adds up.

Not sure why following the constitution makes some one a crank?

Shame that the critique of financial corruption and war mongering has to come from the right rather than the left which sold it's soul to appear 'pro-business'.

Meljomur,
Actually Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are fairly good friends and have worked on some common ground legislation together in the past.

Obviously they don't agree on everything but they seem to get along pretty well.

Agree with others here that the media is really loosing it's bearings here in the US about Paul. It really scrambled their eggs tonight and that was very satisfying in it's own right.

Yesterday I heard Ron Paul on TV for a few minutes. He seems to be able to think and to argue for himself. Beyond that, what he was saying was simply reasonable.

Then I expect he did not use that particular interview to repeat his ideas for the abolition of any form of national education system, the abolition of 1960s civil rights legislation, and the implementation of an economic strategy that would turn the US into a 3rd world country within 12 months.

Because if he did, I would hope for your sake that you would not find such proposals simply reasonable.

But Mitt is a famous flip-flopper, while Paul is supposed to be consistent - if we could just decide what he consistently is.

He is consistently unlike every other candidate (hell, even unlike the vast majority of Democrat candidates), and he consistently goes against the bipartisan consensus that exists on some very important issues (war, civil liberties, terror, financial sector). I would have thought that this was obvious.

Speaking for myself, I am a European socialist, so obviously I would strongly disagree with Paul on his libertarian, anti-government views (although the state vs. federal issue is much more interesting than that). But if American democracy is in big trouble - and I would say that it is - surely it is in part because politicians in the mould of Ron Paul have virtually disappeared from the field, to the extent that American democracy ever allowed space for them to exist in the first place.

@RedSperanza

The fact that Paul is a viable political candidate on the national stage is testimony to how confused and unstable American politics has become.

Confused and unstable at the voter and the grassroots level, and in the 24/7 full-blast media channels, yes. But at the level of government and in Congress, the opposite is the case. Things have become too stable, all politicians have become too similar (they're all rich for one thing, and they all need vast campaign funds), even the practical mechanism of government is stuck (getting stuck in the senate with the filibustering). The squabbling over the small issues is to disguise the fact that, as I said, there is a bipartisan consensus on everything that matters. For example, in reality they're all agreed that social security and the govenrment as a whole needs to be shrunk, they disagree only about by how much (and the Democrats make their big noisy play about defending against shrinking it, but always end up compromising with the Republicans like Obama did this summer).

Lovely to see a piece on Ron Paul.

Unfortunately by the time he was sworn in, Ron would have taken a bullet. Still, one lives in hope I suppose.

Anyone who wants the US to withdraw from all its wars and abolish the powers of the FED should automatically receive the support of any Guardian reader.