It was thought provoking but perhaps not in the way the author intended. In some sense the author answers their own question… by elevating Paul to a celebrity level it effectively puts him on the same level as Obama. It’s much more important to vote for the message as opposed to the man/woman.

Ironically the author speaks of young Goldwater supporters… and hopes Paul supporters will follow the template of them yet for some reason leaves off the most famous young Goldwater supporter… Goldwater girl Hillary Clinton. In fact, the author seems almost clueless about history… while I don’t consider Reagan a NeoCon, he sold out to the NeoCon’s to become presidency and Goldwater himself remarked to Bob Dole during the 1996 convention that they were the new “liberals” of the party hijacked by the neocons.

Most voters are flaky and vote for rock stars. Time will tell if the young educated themselves or will move on to the next fad. Frankly, and this is a general comment… the founding fathers got it right by limiting the vote to property owners. While I’m not suggesting going back to only allowing white male property owners to vote, this county was designed as a Republic… not a democracy. Special interests control more and more, in particular as voters become more disconnected.

What will make the difference is if Ron Paul supporters don’t sell their principles out for power. I’m deeply disturb with some of the directions the movement has taken…. from Paul supporters endorsing liberty haters like Gary Glenn to the politics of division and back room deals some are practicing. It’s like they forgot Ron Paul’s major appeal is he stayed the course of principle. Believe it or not, they matter.

If these disenfranchised activists stay active, it will likely be to support third party candidates and independents like Johnson who want to minimize government, unlike either major party. Worse, many of them will support moderate Democrats as the least-worst option, for their tendency toward a more open social contract. The radicalization of the Tea Party by the extreme right has not helped this cause.

If the GOP wants to keep the Paul activists, it needs to prove that it can support everyone’s rights- not just the rights of heterosexual men. It needs to get the hell out of people’s bedrooms and focus on minimizing government impediments to the pursuit of happiness, such as excessive taxes and regulation.

Nonetheless, the question Dave poses is interesting. And it would be interesting to know how many Paul voter’s skipped down ballot races, especially ballot propositions.

Also, in 2008, Obama ran against the “liberal” cause of gay-marriage, not for it as your article implies. Many black voters turned out in California and voted for Obama and decisively for hetero-marriage. I also don’t remember that abortion was a major issue in the 2008 campaign, and the California abortion restrictions failed to pass despite the abstentions of young Obama supporters. Nationally, abortion is much more likely to be an issue in 2012, given all the abortion legislation that Republicans have pushed and/or passed since 2010.