"Loves the neocon position?" Could that be a veiled threat at a Giuliani nomination, as Giuliani's fopo advisors are almost all neocons like Podhoertz?

I don't know how much Paul would split the GOP vote as a third party candidate. I feel more like he'd bring in non-voters and coalesce third party voters. He'd certainly pull off a few GOP voters, but I think we'd lose some anti-Patriot Act folks, too.

Could take 3-4% (or more) from the GOP nominee, while simultaneously keeping the Democratic nominee honest on Iraq.

Sounds like a win-win for progressives.

Take a brief(very very very brief) stop by Redstate(then shower) and you will see how much they hate Ron Paul and his supporters(they call them moRons).

Where would his money come from?  He could do some damage if he could fund his own campaign (like Ross Perot).  I agree with tparty --> small percentage, not unlike Nader.  Hopefully could tip the balance.

As far as taking some Dem-leaning libertarians, I don't think it will be a problem.  My intuition is that these folks will not show up to the polls at all without a candidate they believe in.  These libertarians/potential Paul-voters are not so Dem-leaning that they would show up to the polls to vote for Hillary or Obama or Edwards in a two-candidate general.

I think he'd be much more of a threat to Republican candidates than Nader was to Democratic candidates in the past. There has been a significant backlash against the "neoconservative" agenda of the Bush administration, especially among the Old Guard (epitomized by William F. Buckley) and conservative youth (tend to be more libertarian). I'd say he would capture ~%5.

On a side note, for comprehensive non-partisan campaign coverage and candidate profiles (including an actively updated section on Ron Paul) please check out a cool NEW site by Harvard students: http://www.votegopher.com which NYT's chief political correspondent called "unusually extensive" for a site of its type.

Huckabee & Paul have the most interesting candidacies of the Republicans. Huckabee in Iowa and Paul in NH could place in the top three.  That's going to give them momentum. The best case scenario is a long Republican brokered convention with Paul being forced out of the hall.

Republicans have a long history with the John Birch Society. I don't see why they wouldn't embrace a Bircher now. Paul would definitely siphon some votes off from a gay-lovin' "collectivist" from New York City.

Don't be too sure he will not take many independent, anti-war and fiscally conservative Dems. And there are many of those in Blue states such as NY & CA. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with an unequivocal stand on the Iraq occupation and the cause of the hatred in the Middle East. He's raised $7 million in the last quarter.

Stephen Colbert, IMO, is polling that segment of the population. A third party candidate is a very viable option in todays political climate where the beltway Repubs are tied to the Bush-Cheney hip and will do nothing to stop the meat-grinder in Iraq and the beltway Dems in Congress are actively supporting through their actions the shredding of the Constitution (FISA, AG investigations, contempt, etc) and although they talk a big game are voting to fund the occupation at ever higher levels of funding.

I think a 3rd party candidate will draw from a different demographic this time. Independents that are tired of the beltway elite who only work for their corporate paymasters and who want a candidate with a definite stance towards preserving the Bill of Rights by keeping the national security intelligence apparatus out oof our homes, email and phones and will also get our troops out of the Iraq quagmire with clear and definite timeline.

The far lefters with green streaks could ignore his anti-gay, anti-union, anti-Dept. of Education views and run off to vote for him simply because of his stance on the war.

Norah O'Donnell is a nasty fucking neocon corporate whore.  She's been in bed with the Bush regime since DAY ONE.

This is a false Diary.
I saw the MSNBC interview and you can see it on YouTube.com.  Paul never once implied he would run as a 3rd-Party candidate.

Conversly, Ron Paul has said many times that he has no intention of running as a 3rd-Party and has said that it is impossible because 3rd-party candidates can't get on the ballots and are banned from the General Election debates.

What part of the word no is unclear here?

I don't think there will be any question it would hurt the GOP more. Democrats that are praising him right (which actually aren't that many) now are doing it basically for Iraq war and Consitutional issues. They don't know how horrific he is on healthcare, education, unions, civil rights, women's rights, and so on. He is an extreme right wing economic conservative. That will appeal mostly to Libertarian Republicans.

Interviewer Norah O'Donnell cut Paul off at that point, and did not return to the topic during the rest of the interview.

    Folks, I can't stress this enough--the NoronBot 2K7 is hard-wired to interrupt any serious train of thought upon detection with a harsh cackle which mimics human laughter. It's a feature, not a bug, incorprated from the earlier prototype of the Chris Matthews 2K.

Ron Paul could have a tremendous impact on the race as a third party candidate, assuming he doesn't win the Republican nomination.  He already has more volunteers in local Meetup groups than all of the other candidates combined -- now over 60,000 in over 1,000 groups.

You can't just look at his poll numbers now and expect them to remain unchanged 12 months from now.  His campaign has been growing in a steady upward trend since March in every metric:  polling, fundraising, volunteers, web traffic, YouTube views, etc.  He started out at 0-1% everywhere and is starting to hit 5-7% in some polls now, with very low name recognition.

12 months from now, he could well be in the 15-20% range.  I think he would draw pretty equally from both parties, and very well among independents.  He already is.

If the two major parties nominated Giuliani and Clinton, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that Ron Paul would at least make anti-war, pro-civil liberties voters consider him seriously.