First, it means that the hard work of courting Dr. Paul's supporters (especially those who are more Libertarian than Libertarian Republican).
Secon, it means the chance for some more earned media, as writers do bring the Libertarian presidential candidate's name into speculations about Number One:
The anti-war, anti-spending, small government message that Ron Paul stumps from state to state is still unpopular. A hawkish “defense” is still more popular than a humble admission that our own involvement overseas may have consequences to our national security. For many liberals who might agree with Paul’s anti-war position, the prospect of major cuts to domestic programs is a huge turn-off. Even libertarians have their doubts about Paul, whose paleo-libertarian roots and murky role in the Ron Paul Newsletter controversy have created a widespread bitter taste in the mouths of many libertarians – many of whom have turned to Gary Johnson instead.
One might have suspected a more welcoming GOP in 2012 with the rise of the Tea Party paving a welcome road for Mr. Paul. But Paul’s lack of chest-thumping over US military efforts, his humility and foreign policy realism, represents a serious threat to both the Republican and Democratic establishment, and the Tea Party never posed a threat or an objection to big military spending.
Paul may have paved the way for his son, Rand Paul, to make a presidential bid sometime in the future. The more charismatic – and, let’s face it, more watered-down – Rand could have a shot at the nomination that his father never had.