Paul has a libertarian take on things, and his supporters must have that same view. Therefore, I’m thinking they should be viewed as “independents.” Will they find the democratic party liberal social views the deciding factor, or will they find the republican party’s conservative fiscal policies to be more important.
My sense is that it will depend a bit on the republican.
A liberal republican conservative in fiscal matters would seem to be the place they’d go, but Romney has been such a flip-flopper that they’d trust his record with romneycare before they’d trust anything he’d say. Huntsman could be a direction, but he’s not going anywhere. I think supporting Obama gives them very little of what they’re looking for.
Who would they like the least among the republican conservatives: Perry, Palin, Bachman, Santorum, Cain, or Gingrich? All of those claim to be both socially and fiscally conservative. I think the religious conservatives would make them fear a para-dominionist twist to their policies: Perry, Palin, Bachman and Santorum.
That leaves them with Cain and Gingrich, neither of whom can win.
Ron Paul ran as the libertarian candidate in ‘88 or so. If he did that again, he’d split off more than enough of the party to throw the race to Obama, and he’d have no chance of winning.
Their best alternative has to be Perry, Palin, or Bachmann.
You have, in a nutshell, summed up why the Republican party is going nowhere. You expel liberatrians a social liberals, when the libertarian view is to get government out of "social issues." Nothing is more abohrant to a libertarian than the Democrats. The fact that social conservatives see the republican party choices as RINOism or social conservativism, is a big problem, however.