What would the effect be on the presidental election if Ron Paul dropped out and backed Obama or Clinton?

Ron Paul is dead set aganst continuing the occupation of Iraq as are 3/4 of the US public. Neither Romney or McCain support any kind of withdrawal. Obama and Clinton are in favor of some kind of withdrawal ASAP. On this issue, would at least some of the Paul supporters vote for a democrat?

Public Comments

1. Ron Paul cannot affect the election no matter what he does.
2. The problem is that that is the only issue he agrees with the demos...for everything else he is small government, withdraw from everywhere, the opposite of the demo position. And he is a racist, so I can't see him supporting Obama in any case. edit: The evidence is that he is a racist. His newsletter from a few years ago was white-supremist, although now he claims he didn't actually see what was written there (despite the fact that a lot of the articles were written in the first person, signed by Paul, and published by him under his banner, signifying at least approval). Check the link below to find out more.
3. I would vote for Ron Paul if he were on the ballot. If not, I'd vote Obama, not sleazy, corrupt, globalist Hillary.
4. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH mute point - will never happen. is this like a script for a movie like "Meet the Spartans"? by the way, HE IS NOT A RACIST so go pound sand and stop spreadin lies. and if he doesn't have much of an effect on the election, WHY IS HE STILL HERE??? People said he wasn't TOP TIER in candidacy. Ummm....didn't we have 11 Republicans not to long ago running for Prez?
5. withdraw is a mistake as is the ron paul candidacy
6. zero effect, Paul supporters dont like Hillary or Barack, if they did, they would support them instead of Paul...
7. In last night's CNN Republican Debates, the few occasions he got to speak gave ample evidence of his righteousness; he really made both the front runners dumbfound when he said they were concentrating the technicalities.He is patriot and he will advise his followers what is to be done honestly. Long live Dr Ron Paul !
8. He'd have more effect as a third party candidate.i could care less if that took votes away from McCain.
9. Ron Paul would never back Obama or the Clinton's. He want's to cut taxes and the 3 Dems want to raise taxes. Paul wouldn't give amnesty to illegals and the Dems would. Paul just isn't stupid enough to back either of those losers.
10. Realistically? There would be little effect. Mostly because the majority of Paul supporters are under 30, and that demographic is notorious for not actually getting out and voting on Election Day. They might have gotten out and done so if their dream candidate had gotten the nod, but without him a great many of them will stay home and not bother at all. Even if all of them took such an endorsement to heart and went out and voted it wouldn't move the numbers by more than 3%, and that's being generous. The legend of millions of Paul supporters exists mainly on the Internet, and doesn't translate into the real world very well at all.
11. Ron Paul would never vote for either of those two, ever. But even if he did what difference would it make? Its already been set in stone that Hillary will win (which would be the end of democracy as we know it) . I'm voting for Ron Paul and will do so whether he is nominated or not, I believe he is the only hope for the future of our country. Also no he is NOT a racist, that is simply hearsay. Google any of the so called "evidences" you have heard stating Dr. Paul is racist and you will find proof that he is not. I have done my research because racism is an important issue for me, I have close relatives from several different ethnic back grounds. The only other candidate (other than himself) Ron Paul has alluded to supporting is Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul 2008!
12. He would NEVER endorse a candidate who doesn't respect the constitution of have any realistic economic plans!
13. I will likely vote for Paul in the primary, and because he probably won't win, I'll probably vote for a democrat in the general election. Some Paul supporters might vote for Obama, they are both popular with younger voters. The more socially conservative ones would probably go for Romney. Unfortunately Paul is the only fiscal conservative running, and in the last 25 years, Democratic presidents (i.e. Bill Clinton) have been more fiscally conservative than Republicans. Repubs say they will reduce the size of the government, but they actually increase it, running up deficits to pay for all that extra government. OK, George Bush Senior reduced the size of the government a little. Clinton balanced the budget. Reagan ran up a huge deficit (remember?) and GWB has expanded the government in all sorts of unpleasant and fiscally unsound ways.