While I was on vacation, NEWSWEEK's Sarah Elkins spoke to Ron Paul about why he's still running for president--even though, with 14 delegates, he trails John McCain by 1246 and has admitted that "victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race." It's a fascinating interview. Excerpts:

ELKINS: At this point, the most obvious question is: why are you still doing it? Life on the trail is exhausting, and John McCain has already won the Republican nomination. What keeps you going out there?
Ron Paul: First off, I don't really feel exhausted at all. There were certainly times when I was [exhausted], when there were six or eight or 10 primaries to campaign for. But right now I feel really rested because I came back to Texas and paid attention to my congressional race, which we won easily with 70 percent of the vote [Paul won the GOP nomination, and does not face a Democratic opponent this fall]. So I had time to rest and rethink things, and I feel really good about [the race]. Right now, out of 11 [original Republican presidential] candidates, I'm still out there. We have time and we're still in the race, picking up delegates here and there, and the troops are still very enthusiastic ... I think what I've done over the years is different from other people running for office, because most of the time people run for only one reason, which is to win a political office. They go out and they take polls and figure out what they need to say because the goal of winning comes before anything else. In my case, winning is important, but I need to win on principles that are important to me. If I win on other peoples' principles, I lose.

OK, but at some point you've got to think "enough is enough." When do you decide it's time to throw in the towel?
I will keep campaigning for as long as people are supporting me and the money is there and that's what they want. I feel badly about just quitting. We have 30,000 voters on our list in Pennsylvania, and if I just quit tomorrow--and people can make a case for that: how long should I do this?--I would feel badly. I would feel as though I had let them down. So for me, it's indefinite.

You said earlier that your "troops" are still very enthusiastic, but they've got to be at least somewhat discouraged. What seems to be the general mood among your supporters right now?
It's a mixed bag. I would say 95 percent are just happy with what we've done and continue to do. Of course, others are discouraged and say, "Well, we should have done better, we should have done better," but the rest are so energetic. They say we should keep going and they almost believe some kind of miracle is going to happen [laughs]. I try to keep them grounded in reality. But we are going to the convention, and my job is to tell [my supporters] not to be discouraged. For me, I never expected any of this to happen a year ago. I'd say overall it's been 100 times more successful than I ever dreamed.

You mention going to the convention. Is that something you are definitely expecting to do?
Yeah, sort of. I never thought it was about to happen, actually. I've always assumed it was not likely. But I think from the [Republican Party's] viewpoint, it couldn't hurt them. It would be wise on their part to give me a little time at the convention--what would it hurt to let me talk about monetary policy? I would be polite, and that is an important issue, especially given that the dollar is on the ropes.

Will you encourage your supporters to back McCain in the general election?
I'm not going to tell them what to do, but I honestly can't imagine any of them supporting him. That would be a tough sale. The odds of him all of a sudden coming to one of our rallies and being cheered on are not very high.

You doubt your supporters will vote for McCain, but it's generally political protocol for someone in your position to endorse the party's nominee. Will you throw your weight behind McCain?
I think that's very unlikely. The analogy I've used is that Goldwater led a movement, but that didn't mean that every Goldwater person later voted for Nixon. The Goldwater people backed Reagan. You don't have to support people who you don't believe in just because they are in the party...

READ THE REST HERE.

Heading into Super Tuesday, the Democratic contest is a) close, b) complicated and c) nowhere near the end. But the Republican race, which only weeks ago had seemed wide open, is, well, d) none of the above.

After Florida, John McCain has emerged as the clear frontrunner, expanding his national lead from an average of five percent to a current margin of 19 and securing the poll position in most of the 21 states set to vote. What's more, in 8 of those primaries, caucuses or state conventions, the winner gets all the delegates (no dividing up the spoils, like the Dems.) Meaning, as Adam Nagourney of the New York Times writes, that "it is going to be easy for a candidate to build up a big delegate lead on Tuesday night and, combined with winning some big states, credibly declare himself the party’s presumptive nominee." Coincidentally, that's precisely what McCain plans to do. 

Even a cursory look at the current polling shows the daunting challenge facing Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee as they try to win enough delegates to keep their campaigns alive. If McCain takes the gold in the states where he currently leads, he'll wake up Wednesday with between 512 and 600 additional delegates; combined with his current total of 93, that puts him pretty close to the 1,191 need to clinch the nomination—with no sign of slowing down. Barring some sort of divine intervention, Romney, who has taken pains this week to depict himself as a true conservative alternative to "liberal" maverick McCain, will probably snag between 150 and 350 delegates; Huckabee, between 34 and 100.

As you can see, there's some wiggle room. If the fates conspire against McCain and in favor of Romney--and by "fates" we mean the toss-up states of California, Georgia, North Dakota and Montana--it's possible that Mitt will finish within 100 delegates of Mac, revive his flagging bid and continue the contest indefinitely. (Hooray.)  But that's the least likely scenario. Chances are, McCain, who leads narrowly in the biggest battlegrounds, will win the most states, the most delegates and the most front-page stories--making it near impossible for Romney to kickstart a comeback.

With only hours to go before polls open, here's a deeper look at the lay of the land, according to interviews, polls and published analysis.

And they're off!

TOSS UPS: 351 delegates
California (173), Tennessee (55), Georgia (72), North Dakota (26; no data), Montana (25; no data)

MCCAIN: 512
Lean: Missouri (58), Minnesota (41), Alabama (48), Delaware (18)
Likely: Oklahoma (41), New York (101), New Jersey (52), Illinois (70), Connecticut (30), Arizona (53)

ROMNEY: 184
Lean: Colorado (46), Alaska (29), West Virginia (30)
Likely: Utah (36), Massachusetts (43)

HUCKABEE: 34
Likely: Arkansas (34)

SIMI VALLEY, California--Here's what I took away from tonight's face-off between the four remaining Republican candidates at the Ronald Reagan Library:

1. The Dynamic: Before South Carolina and Florida, the GOP contest was a four-man muddle. But tonight marked the start of a mano-a-mano head-to-head sprint to finish between McCain and Romney. It's a whole new race. Free to focus their fire on each other, the frontrunner (McCain) and the challenger (Romney) defined the dynamic that will determine the Republican nomination: character vs. conservatism.

Romney wants the contest to center on conservative cred, which is why he unloaded on McCain for sponsoring "a number of pieces of legislation where his views are out of the mainstream, at least in my view, of conservative Republican thought": McCain-Lieberman (cap-and-trade), McCain-Kennedy (immigration) and McCain-Feingold (campaign finance reform). Romney's goal? To convince anti-McCain conservatives to coalesce around his candidacy, providing a powerful brake to Mac's post-Florida momentum.

McCain, on the other hand, wants Super Tuesday voters to compare his character to Romney's. Which is why he took Romney to task for hedging on the surge while the Arizona senator "unequivocally put [his] career and [his] political fortunes on the line... to support" Bush's policy. The implication: that Mitt doesn't have the cojones to lead in a time of terror.

So who's dominating the tug-of-war? I'm going to say McCain. While Romney raised valid questions about his rival's conservative "apostasies"--questions, I should note, that the senator largely dodged (the one on his opposition to the Bush tax cuts was particularly blatant)--it's not like many voters expect the "maverick" McCain to tow toe the party line. Romney is telling people a story they already know. But when McCain questions Romney's character, he's not only drawing a contrast--he's reminding voters that Romney, a moderate back in Massachusetts, has tacked to the right on key conservative issues like abortion, gay rights, immigration and abortion. (Did I mention abortion?) According to McCain, Romney is casting stones from a glass house--and his lack of consistency (read: character) also undermines his conservative cred.

This was Romney's last best chance to reorient the race before Super Tuesday--but he spent most of the night defending or clarifying his positions (especially on Iraq, McCain's strong suit). Not helpful.

Here's NEWSWEEK'S Holly Bailey from Boca Raton with a report on last night's Republican snoozefest... or, um, "debate":

Maybe Fred Thompson should have stayed in after all. His droll one-liners might have enlivened what was one of the flattest performances yet from a group of GOP candidates who have done battle on the debate stage 18 times before. Familiarity is breeding contempt-not among the combatants, but perhaps among members of the viewing audience.

As the Democratic field has narrowed to a two-candidate contest, the back-and-forth has grown more intense, as evidenced by the sharp sticks Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama poked in each others' eyes last Monday, during a Martin Luther King Day smackdown in South Carolina. But the GOP field has remained a bit more fluid. Florida's crucial Republican primary looms on Jan. 29-a vote which may well determine whether Rudy Giuliani can stay in the race, whether John McCain builds on his past victories to establish a serious head of steam heading into Super Tuesday, whether Mitt Romney can muster Southern appeal, and whether Mike Huckabee has a prayer. But instead of taking sharp aim at one another, the leading Republican candidates seemed more interested in getting their licks in against Clinton, too.

If you somehow missed the first 75 minutes of the debate, broadcast on MSNBC from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Fla., thank your lucky stars. Did anyone try to stand out? Not really. In spite of an attempt at serious questions about what to do about the struggling economy, the candidates stuck to their usual talking points, extolling the virtues of tax cuts, endorsing stimulus plans and cutting spending. Giuliani talked up his time as mayor of New York City, again; in a guaranteed applause line, McCain trashed the Bridge to Nowhere-four times to be exact. It felt like the film Groundhog Day-except for the few mentions of Florida-centric issues like the National Catastrophic Fund, which Giuliani supports and the other candidates are slightly iffy on. (Guess what's going to be the top story in Friday's Florida papers?)

The most exciting moment in the first half hour? A shot of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist sitting in the audience. On TV, he was so tan he looked like an Oompa Loompa.

Read the rest here. 

From my wrap-up of Thursday's South Carolina showdown: 

You could almost hear them yawning. The pundits and prognosticators paid to talk endlessly about politics had little else to say. After an hour-and-a-half on stage in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Thursday night, the six leading Republican candidates for president had produced no fireworks, no slapfests, no real "news."

In a narrow sense, the chattering classes were right--nothing changed over the course of those 90 minutes. Mitt Romney didn't short-circuit; Mike Huckabee didn't levitate. But what we got instead what just as interesting--and probably more informative. After a one-two primary punch in Iowa and New Hampshire that only muddled an already confusing contest, the Republican race now looks more like a Rubik's Cube than a chessboard--a cluster of regional competitions with different contestants who each have different objectives, all moving at once.

Consider Thursday’s Dixieland debate a sneak peek at the dynamics that will define the next three weeks. Facing a burst of make-or-break primaries in three wildly dissimilar states--Michigan on Jan. 15; South Carolina on Jan. 19 and Florida on Jan. 29--the candidates revealed exactly how they expect to survive until Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5.

Read the rest here.

RUDY GIULIANI
Pre-Primary Polling Average: Fourth Place, 9.3 percent 

Despite finishing second only to McCain in terms of days spent in New Hampshire--41 to the Arizona senator's 46--Giuliani hasn't really been competitive here since September. Rudy has basically admitted as much, telling everyone who will listen that he's focusing on Florida and the Feb. 5 states instead. Which means that no one expects a medal finish. Still, it's not all upside tonight; Ron Paul, who's only one point behind, has a chance to top Hizzoner--an embarrassing headline. Looking ahead, these early losses will likely add up, affecting Giuliani's standing in the all-important big states; he's already ceded his national edge to Huckabee, and that could trickle down. Will it be enough to shatter his huge leads in California, New Jersey and New York? We'll know in a month.

RON PAUL
Pre-Primary Polling Average: Fifth Place, 8.2 percent

Paul's libertarian message is a natural fit in the state of "Live Free, or Die." And because he attracts new voters, he tends to do slightly better than polls predict (2.7 percent in Iowa, to be exact). But Paul isn't going to overcome McCain or Romney. On the plus side, expectations are at rock-bottom. If the good doctor beats Huckabee and/or Giuliani, the media will swarm, giving him the sort of attention he'll need if he later decides to run as a third-party candidate. That's the best-case scenario. Sorry, Paulites.

FRED THOMPSON
Pre-Primary Polling Average: Sixth, 2.2. percent

Thompson is toast. He's put all his chips on South Carolina--a state where Huckabee is now trouncing him by 20 points. Unless they find a hooker in Huck's pulpit between now and Jan. 19, it's over. Paging Dick Wolf.

Spotted last night at 11:00 p.m. taped to the pavement on Lowell Street in downtown Manchester:

 

Newsweek political columnist Jonathan Alter is up here in New Hampshire covering the primary, and he just sent me three fascinating tidbits.

1. Huckabee was disappointed by his performance in tonight's FOX News GOP debate. Asked whether he missed a chance to deck Romney, Huck admitted that he's "had better nights": "Sometimes there are a lot of things on the menu and you can only order one or two." According to Alter, Huckabee's aides think he blew a chance to finish third here and capture some momentum heading into friendlier South Carolina--and they're upset. They wanted the coup de grace delivered to Mitt; because it wasn't--and because Romney has plenty of money--he gets to keep going. The pundits may be saying that FOX face-off was pointless. Alter says it was "pivotal."

2. On the Democratic side, Elizabeth Edwards told Alter that her husband won't drop out of the race until the convention, even if he trails badly. The reason? To speak up for the voiceless. Time to start pinching pennies...

3. In the GOP ABC/Facebook debate on Saturday, Ron Paul had kind words for Barack Obama. With Alter, he went one step further, saying that he has more in common with the Illinois senator than the other Republicans. I guess Romney isn't the only one trying to hop on the Barack bandwagon.

By Holly Bailey 

It was supposed to be a smackdown between John McCain and Mitt Romney. But Saturday's GOP presidential debate in New Hampshire, held three days before the state's high stakes primary, was something more of a four-on-one gang fight, with Romney as the target.

Struggling to regain momentum after losing the Iowa caucuses, the former Massachusetts governor spent much of the night on defense, coming under attack by nearly every rival on stage, except for Ron Paul. (And he, too, probably would have dinged Romney if he'd gotten the time.) Romney was slapped by his opponents for changing positions on immigration, health care and foreign policy--though the jabs didn't come unsolicited. Romney arrived on stage ready to fight, training his fire early on McCain and Mike Huckabee, who quickly fought back.

The fireworks started in the first minutes of the debate, which aired on ABC, when Romney trashed Huckabee's recent essay in Foreign Affairs magazine in which the former Arkansas governor criticized the Bush administration for having an "arrogant bunker mentality" on foreign policy. In response, Huckabee pushed back, accusing Romney of echoing a similar opinion last year and of supporting a "timed withdrawal" of troops from Iraq.

"Don't characterize my position," Romney warned.

"Which one?" Huckabee shot back.

And that wasn't the only venom of the night. When Romney went after McCain, accusing him of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants (a charge Romney makes in one of his TV ads airing here in New Hampshire), the Arizona senator repeatedly denied the charge. "You can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, my friend, but it still won't be true," McCain said, referring to the millions of his own dollars that Romney has pumped into his campaign.

McCain's line elicited a loud cackle downstage from Rudy Giuliani, who has clashed more than once with Romney over immigration. Fred Thompson, a mostly quiet presence in the debate, went after Romney a few seconds later on the issue. "Didn't you say Republicans were making a terrible mistake if they were separating themselves with President Bush on the illegal immigration issue?" Thompson asked. Romney said he'd been misquoted, which prompted McCain to jump back in. "You're always misquoted," McCain scoffed. "When you change positions on issues from time to time, you will get misquoted." From downstage, Giuliani laughed again, and Romney was visibly irritated, accusing McCain of "personal attacks."

But Romney didn't get much of a reprieve. A few minutes later, Giuliani piled on Romney, reminding the audience that nobody in the field has a perfect record on immigration--not even Ronald Reagan, who Giuliani called "the hero of our party." "Ronald Reagan did amnesty," Giuliani said. "I think he'd be in one of Mitt's commercials. This time, it was McCain who laughed.

While Huckabee, Thompson and Giuliani were clearly going after Romney out of their own self interest, it seemed at times as though they were doing McCain's bidding. The latest CNN/WMUR/UNH poll out Saturday night has McCain narrowly leading Romney in New Hampshire 33 percent to 27 percent, with the rest of the pack down by double digits. That means every slam on Romney, no matter who delivered the punch, benefits McCain.

With some exceptions--notably his talk on health care, which is not his best subject--McCain brought his a-game to the stage tonight. The Arizona senator has struggled throughout the campaign to seem more energized and engaged in debate formats, which clearly aren't his forte. But tonight, he broke out of the box, avoided repeating all-too familiar lines from his stump speech, as he has in the past, and was quick on his feet to engage Romney--though his last quip on Romney's flip-flops ("You are the candidate of change.") seemed a tad bit too pre-planned.

With the exceptions of their attacks on Mitt, everybody else faded to the background. Huckabee, who has made no secret of the fact he doesn't expect to win in New Hampshire, did little to call attention to himself, which might have been calculated, since a win for McCain here would also be a big win for him. Ditto for Giuliani, who is still apparently focused on winning the nomination through the Super Tuesday states on Feb. 5. Thompson, as he has been for most debates, was slow and steady. His answers were good on many questions, but he still didn't do much to help his cause.

Under attack from all sides, Romney wore down under the fire and appeared uneven and somewhat unfocused under the questioning. He never got the chance he needed to score points against McCain, his chief rival on Tuesday. Maybe he'll have the fire and fortitude he needs by Sunday night, when the Republicans debate yet again, on the same stage, this time on Fox News Channel.

DES MOINES, Iowa--Nothing says "Happy New Year" like a snapshot of the Republican race in Iowa. And we here at Stumper headquarters--i.e., the Holiday Inn in downtown Des Moines--are happy to oblige.

(Click here for an updated look at the Democrats.) 

Mike Huckabee (28.3 percent)
Brace yourself, Hucksters. I've got good news and bad news. The good news: last night, the Des Moines Register, the only outlet to correctly predict the top four finishers in 2004, released its final pre-caucus poll--and it shows Huckabee beating Mitt Romney by six points, 32 to 26. If you tuned out before the holidays, that might not seem like much of a headline; Huckabee held a double-digit lead going into Christmas. But over the past ten days, he's plummeted back to earth, and in some surveys, Romney even regained his lead. A nice bump in "The Only Caucus Poll That Counts"® effectively kills the "bursting Huckabee bubble" narrative in its crib. The bad news: the entire political press corps is laughing at him. After enduring weeks of attacks from Romney on immigration, crime and foreign policy that he characterized as "very desperate and frankly...dishonest," Huckabee finally snapped yesterday, holding a press conference at the Des Moines Marriott to decry gutter politics and announce that he had decided to pull an ad that would attack Romney's record. The only problem: he immediately "directed the attention of scores of reporters and television cameras to a movie screen, where he played the 30-second hit piece." As Slate's John Dickerson wrote, "a transcript of the event will show this response from the press corps: 'Bwahahahahaha!' [sound of reporters falling out of chairs, doubled over in laughter]." The press saw Huckabee's "change of heart" as a cynical/JV ploy to get them to air his ad (for free--it instantly made cable news) while allowing him to maintain the high road. Whether Iowans will agree, disagree or simply be confused--that's another story.

Mitt Romney (27.9 percent)
Iowans were never particularly comfortable with the businesslike, formerly moderate Romney, but he managed to preserve his lead for much of last year by dropping a ton of dough in the state. Huckabee burst that bubble in November, and the Mormon from Massachusetts never fully recovered. He's spent much of the last month attacking his rivals from Arkansas and Arizona (John McCain) on issues, like immigration, that he wasn't particularly "conservative" on until recently. As a result, his campaign has become more about them and less about him--which is the opposite of how Iowans like it. That said, Romney's tied with Huckabee in the polls (on average), and pulverizing him in the money, organization and infrastructure departments. And while Huck flies to Hollywood to appear on Leno and schedules only a stop or two here each day, Mitt is crisscrossing the state by bus and plane and pounding the pavement for every vote. Still the safest bet on caucus night.

The Rest
Only Romney and Huckabee have a shot at winning on caucus night. McCain polls at 11.6 percent; Fred Thompson follows at 11.3; and Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani lag behind at about six. But because there's no clear frontrunner nationally, third place is key. A typically lethargic campaigner, Thompson has gone all in here, running ads and covering the entire state by bus over the past two weeks. But McCain might have the upper hand. Reflecting his resurgence in New Hampshire, the Des Moines Register poll puts the Arizona senator at 13 percent to Thompson's nine. Seemingly surprised by the numbers, McCain just scheduled a last-minute, caucus-eve swing through the state.

The Bottom Line 
It's all about expectations at this point. A surprisingly sizable win would vindicate Huckabee, who often pits himself as the David to Romney's Goliath, and give him serious momentum going into South Carolina and Florida, where he currently polls well. But the more likely result--an inconclusive victory--would shock no one, muddling his mojo and making it difficult to survive losses in New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada, which precede those southern states on the schedule. Huckabee could probably limp along with a close second-place finish, but it won't propel him to the nomination. And if Romney crushes him, it's over. For Romney, a strong first would look like comeback; those headlines will help immensely heading into his home turf of New Hampshire and Michigan. Any sort of second place finish makes New Hampshire a must-win, and is great news for Giuliani (who isn't even competing here). If Thompson finishes fourth, he's out. Which means that McCain is still in--and looking stronger than ever in New Hampshire. He'll be praying for that result--and a Huckabee victory--on caucus night.

'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. 

What's Ron Paul doing with all his money? Newsweek's Sarah Elkins reports.

At Wednesday’s CNN/YouTube debate, Texas Congressman Ron Paul said his campaign is “struggling to figure out how to spend” the incredible amounts of money he’s been raising online.

Sorry, Dr. Paul. Your struggle is about to get a little tougher.

On Nov. 5, Paul supporters set the record for largest single-day Internet fundraising haul of all time—$4.2 million. Labeled a “moneybomb,” the effort thrust Paul into the national spotlight. Now, Trevor Lyman, the Miami Beach music promoter who organized the online fundraiser, is hoping to recapture the moneybomb magic. On Dec. 15, Paulites will participate in rallies across the country before launching a second mass-donation campaign at midnight on Dec. 16 (the 233rd anniversary of the Boston Tea Party). “The 16th will be big,” says Lyman, who's not affiliated with Paul’s official campaign. “We will beat our last record. I’m almost positive.”

Another multimillion-dollar bundle would be a tremendous boon for Paul, who is only two million shy of his $12 million fourth-quarter fundraising goal. But it underscores the central concern about his candidacy: Can all this cash actually catapult him to victory?  “Money is a resource, not an outcome,” says unaffiliated GOP pollster and strategist David Winston. “And the fact that Ron Paul is saying he doesn’t know what to do with those resources says that, at this point, he doesn’t understand how to win. How does he go from 3 or 4 percent to 15 percent?”

Paul acknowledges that his “campaign people were squirming” during Wednesday’s debate. But he’s quick to add that his “struggling” comment was tongue-in-cheek. “I was poking a little fun at all those other Republicans,” he says. “Some Republicans around the country are closing up shop and firing people, and here we have all this money.”

How’s he spending it? Setting up new offices, for one (like a new HQ in Charleston, S.C.). Pumping money into radio and television ads. And beefing up his staff. At the start of the quarter, Paul’s campaign employed between 50 and 55 full-time staff members. That number has now hit 70. Fundraising Director Jonathan Bydlak claims that the extra cash will, in the end, equal more votes. “We are focusing the money on increasing Ron's visibility,” he says. “Right now, 60 percent of people in New Hampshire don't even know who Ron Paul is, and yet our numbers aren't far off from candidates who 100 percent of people in New Hampshire know. So imagine what they would be like if everybody was familiar with Ron Paul's message."

Whether or not spending is a “struggle,” Paul admits that the flood of cash does create challenges—like keeping clear of opportunists. “We’re not obsessed with spending [money] just for the sake of spending,” he says. “And we have so many volunteers and people who want to work on the campaign now, we have to be careful that people might be coming around who want to spend that money for us.”

Paul's job, between now and next spring, is to prove that those millions are in the right hands already.

Ron Paul has raised nearly $5.6 million this quarter--and $2.4 today.

 

The mainstream media tends dismiss Ron Paul as a slightly wacky fringe candidate who has managed to excite a small but vocal band of libertarian voters--yet stands absolutely no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

No disagreement here.

But sometimes "slightly wacky fringe candidates" can tell you a lot more about American politics--especially the future of American politics--than the safe, steady frontrunners. Such is Paul. At 12 a.m. today, Paul supporters launched a spontaneous effort to "money bomb" their candidate with Internet contributions. The plan, one fan told Politico's Jonathan Martin, "came up at www.ronpaulforums.com about 3-4 weeks ago... The idea was to get 100,000 people to donate $100 (for $10 million)."

Ambitious, yes. Crazy, maybe. Unhelpful? Hardly. Without sending out a single solicitation email, the Paul campaign has raked in $2.4 million since midnight. For comparison, Howard Dean topped out at $800,000 a day in 2004. It took Barack Obama 48 hours to raise $1.4 million earlier this month. And $2.4 million is far more than Mike Huckabee, the MSM's flavor of the month, has raised over the entire quarter.

What does Paul's fundraising frenzy tell us? For one, we're nowhere near maximizing the potential of online politicking. But it remains to be seen if this sort of surge is reserved only for candidates whose marginal positions connect with a similarly marginal--and by definition small (if rabid)--fanbase, or if a more viable pol can somehow inspire such fanatical (and lucrative) support.