'Tis the season for speculation. Which is why I'm sure you're dying to know what sort of extravagant cerebrations, cogitations and conjectures Stumper has conjured up in the wake of this afternoon's meet-and-greet with Texas Congressman Ron Paul at Newsweek's New York offices.

Why, it just so happens that I've prepared a list. 

1) If Paul loses the Republican nomination, he will mount a third-party bid, and

2) If Paul mounts a third-party bid, he will siphon off more votes from Democrats than Republicans.

Here's why. Asked what kind of showing he needs in Iowa and New Hampshire to stay afloat, Paul admits that he doesn't put much stock in those early nominating contests. "I need to make sure I'm not in last place," he says, laughing. "I don't have a number or a percentage. It's hard to say. But I think my campaign is less dependent on do-or-die in the first two positions, here or there. We don't look at it that way as much as, is the campaign growing? Is it still raising money? Are we getting new supporters?"

I agree that a "growing" campaign flooded with "money" and "new supporters" is a beautiful thing to behold. But Paul still needs 1,259 delegates to win the Republican nomination, and there's only one way to get 'em: by winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and so on. Not finishing in last place simply won't cut it.

If, that is, he's seeking only the GOP nomination. But asked why he's a Republican, circa 2007--as we did--Paul, who ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, expresses only the loosest of loyalties. "I guess because I was elected ten times as a Republican," he says. More laughter. "My parents were Republicans and I think that has an influence."

Yes, Paul's support may skyrocket over the next few months. He may go from five percent in the national polls to, say, 25 percent. He may win big on SuperDuper Tuesday. Anything can happen. But even the most fervent Paulite has to admit the odds are long. In all likelihood, Paul will wake up on Feb. 6 with millions in the bank (he says he's spending "carefully") and hundreds of thousands of serious supporters unwilling to let the dream die. Then what? Let those investments go to waste? Or buck up, break with a party he largely disdains and soldier on? "Would I stay in the race as an independent?" he asks, acknowledging the option. It's a question that no candidate still competing for his party's nomination can answer in the affirmative. So Paul just says "I don't forsee that"--and leaves the door (noticeably, if not wide) open.

My second prediction is, of course, contingent on the first coming true. But something Paul said early in today's Newsweek conversation convinced me that as a third-party candidate he would prove more appealing to Dems than Republicans. I walked in about five minutes late, fumbling with my notepad and tape recorder. The first thing I heard out of Paul's mouth? 

"We're probably in a more dangerous situation than any time in the history of mankind."

Hyperbole aside, Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney also say we're in danger. But unlike Paul they ascribe the threat to "Islamic jihad" or "radical jihadism" or "Islamic terrorism." The rest of the party pretty much agrees (36 percent, a clear plurality, list "Iraq" or "Terrorism/National Defense" as their top issues in the latest Pew poll).

Paul, on the other hand, blames the "globalization of the dollar." Asked for his solution, he says "we have to give up our empire"--and cites Iran as an example. "Now we know that they haven't been trying to build a nuclear weapon for four years," he says. "What if I were president tomorrow and I said, "This is wonderful news, this is what I expected all along, the Navy is coming home and we are removing sanctions?" I think that would give a boost to the dollar."

Perhaps. But in the general election, this sort of foreign policy--which is anathema to the vast majority of Republicans, post Sept. 11--would appeal to exactly two types of voters: 1) Economic libertarians like Paul who are so invested in balancing the budget that they'd close all of our military bases around the world to do so and 2) dovish, disaffected Dems who think their leadership (and, presumably, their nominee) has been too eager to follow Bush on Iraq and Iran. Figure out which group is larger and you've figured out who should be more worried--Dems or Republicans--about an Independent Paul bid.

I suspect it's the latter.

But let me know if/why you disagree. The comments are all yours.