Hi Bruce,
As a Ron Paul supporter, I really enjoyed reading your editorial in today's Seattle Times.
The only thing I'd disagree on is that there "is no way this libertarian medical doctor from Texas is going to win the Republican nomination." I believe he has a miniscule chance of winning. As you stated, two-thirds of Americans want us out of Iraq. That doesn't mean they necessarily agree with Ron Paul's time table, but it does show that there's most likely a large group of Republicans who are receptive to the message of non-interventionism. I do not, like some of my fellow Ron Paul supporters, believe that the online polls are any indication of the strength of support for Dr. Paul, but I do believe that the internet is a useful tool in giving Congressman Paul's name the exposure he will need in order to win.
In my opinion, there are many Republicans who agree with Ron Paul's views, but who agree with you that there's no way he will win. If Ron Paul can somehow manage to get 5% in some of the "offline" polls, it's possible that some of these Republicans will chance their view to "there's a small chance he'll win". Once that happens, Dr. Paul's polling numbers would continue to rise, as suddenly GOP voters will start telling pollster that they will vote for Congressman Paul. This snowball effect is what a second-tier candidate like Ron Paul will need in order to win.
New Hampshire is probably the place where this will need to happen. Perhaps you're familiar with the Free State Project? They have literally hundreds of activists inside New Hampshire, who have already shown their willingness to put their money where their mouth is by moving to New Hampshire from across the country. If they throw their support behind Congressman Paul, and if he does well in the debate that CNN will host in New Hampshire next week, his numbers in the offline polls in that state may just reach that magical 5% mark.
