?The last time Paul managed to pull off a slight lead of Obama in any poll was in September of 2011. After that, Obama outpolled him every single poll, with Mitt Romney being the only person running who managed to beat Obama in multiple polls afterward. Plus, that last poll was more than a year before the campaign began (and he had lost the majority of them before that). Once the campaign began, Obama would grind Paul into the dust. Paul wouldn't win the youth vote, any initial pro-Paul excitement would die down once his crazed views on the economy became known. I don't know how you are getting Paul picking up people with his social views, which by the way are anti-choice, pro-DOMA, pro-prayer in public schools, anti-affirmative action, anti-marriage equality, pro-sodomy laws, anti-evolution, and pro-death penalty. Once Obama's campaign plays up the horribly offensive newsletters, that's all she wrote on the subject of Paul winning any social liberal votes. Paul's plan is more heartless to the poor then Romney's, that's economic fact that Obama could use to his advantage. Ron Paul's foreign policy stances would hurt him badly amongst Republicans as well. He might be able to get 75-80% of Romney's votes.
Your analysis is good, but the map seems a bit off.
None of these three options are going to happen. Again, Paul is a social reactionary. He supports allowing states to enact sodomy laws. He is totally anti-choice. He is personally anti-same sex marriage. He is in favor of school prayer. The only issues he's more liberal on than Obama are drugs and the PATRIOT act, neither of which are going to convince voters that reactionary Paul is more "genuine" than Obama. Also, the newsletters issue is going to come up, and there are three possible reasons those newsletters exist in their current form:
The GOP contested 2012 hard. The party had to win. They would not nominate a sacrificial lamb like Dole again, especially against Obama. The party would fall in line with Paul with much reservations, in the desperate hope that they can manipulate him. After all, the Democrats fell in line behind McGovern in '72, knowing what would happen. But 1972 and 2012 are not that alike; Obama was not as popular as Nixon was in 1972, and was nearly beaten by Romney in the end. That is a worst case scenario for Paul, albeit the odds are still 10-1 that he could pull off a narrow, 2000 style win.Maybe it's not quite ASB that Paul could win, but it's close. It would have to take a major scandal in the Obama administration to give him a chance and that might only slightly improve his chances.
I'd be interested in seeing how Paul would debate Obama. I've seen the videos his supporters have posted on YouTube where they claim he absolutely demolished so and so and I just can't see it. Paul, to me, is a poor debater who gets extremely antsy when answering questions and his tone often grates - to the point where he comes across as whining.
I think, in a broader general election campaign, he'd find it difficult to articulate his more extreme views. He just doesn't have 'it' and while he would certainly gain support from a small minority, to me, he'd be to Obama as McGovern was to Nixon. His campaign would be rooted in the extremes and it would be easy to push back at the idea of him being president ... especially if some influential Republicans openly criticized his campaign. While I think most would get in line, I wouldn't be surprise if a few big-named Republicans openly said they could not, and would not, support Ron Paul.
So, guys like Newt Gingrich and even Mitt Romney might not endorse Obama, or say they're voting for Obama, but they'll actively say they can't, or won't, support Ron Paul.
In the end, if Paul ran against Obama, this is how I foresee the electoral college:
Obama: 56.6%, 419 electoral votes
Paul: 38.7%, 119 electoral votes
Other: 4.7%, 0 electoral votes
Ron Paul himself said in an interview that he only supported the bill because it attacked amnesty.
