Steve Kornacki explains why Ron Paul isn’t going to run as a third-party candidate this year:
This offers Ron Paul a different, more meaningful way of enjoying the last laugh in his war with the party establishment: Stepping aside gracefully at the end of the GOP primary campaign and handing off the family political franchise to his son.
The logic is compelling. The Paul libertarian economic message is becoming increasingly mainstream in the Republican Party, as the growth in Ron Paul’s support between 2008 and 2012 attests, and long-term trends suggest the GOP will only move further to the right in the years ahead. In other words, if there’s an open presidential nomination in 2016, Rand Paul could be a major factor — starting with the base that his father now enjoys and expanding it in ways he never could. Or maybe he’d have to wait until 2020. Either way, though, it’s not inconceivable that Rand Paul could ultimately mount a successful campaign for the Republican nod.
Michael made a version of this argument earlier this week, and it makes perfect sense. There is really nothing to be gained by launching a third-party bid, and it would provide the GOP with an easy excuse in the event that Romney lost the election. That would prevent the much-needed examination of the party’s flaws, and it would link Paul’s ideas with Obama’s re-election. In any case, it’s been clear for some time that Paul was never going to run as a third-party candidate.
BarryD 
Well, Paul stated on Meet the Press back on December 11 that he had no plans to run on a third-party ticket. There is also an interesting dynamic at work between Romney and Paul, which I don’t think is a product of my imagination. On the same MTP show (which followed a debate the night before, if I am not mistaken, where Michelle Bachmann referred to “Newt Romney”), he criticized both Romney and Gingrich, but he had some kind words to say about Romney (“more diplomatic”), as opposed to the disdain he had a hard time hiding toward Gingrich. I may be wrong, but he is giving off vibes that he considers Romney a much more decent man than the sleazy Gingrich.
On the other hand, Romney has displayed a respectful attitude toward Paul, in stark contrast to Gingrich and Santorum, who both said they couldn’t support Paul if he were the nominee. Romney, in contrast, declared on Morning Joe on Wednesday (day after the Iowa caucuses) that “any of the seven Republican candidates” (obviously including Paul) would make a better President than Obama. I realize it is a small point, but it demonstrated to me that Romney is a much better poitician than most people think. Looking ahead, he clearly wants to avoid a third party run by Paul since that would doom his candidacy.
I think Paul also senses, as I do, is that Romney, despite the heated rhetoric, is a much more reluctant warrior than the other right-wing kooks running for the nomination. I can point to the 2008 S.C. debate where he displayed a less than enthusiastic belief in the “Surge” and got slammed by McCain. He also expressed reservations in a 2011 debate about fighting Afghanistan’s “war of indepenence” and got slammed by McCain’s travelling partner Sen. Graham. Since then, he has tucked in his ears and has uttered the usual neocon boilerplate because he has his eyes on the prize. I find it truly ironic that the pro-war neocon Bill Kristol and the anti-war realist Daniel Larison both distrust Romney intensely. They both can’t be right.