Nevada Primary and the State of Small L Libertarianism

By now everyone is aware of the results of the Nevada caucus.  According to Google, with 88.9% of precincts reporting, the results are:

1. Romney (49.6%)
2. Gingrich (21.3%)
3. Paul (18.5%)
4. Santorum (10.3%)

 Now, as a realist Ron Paul supporter I understand the odds against his campaign, and so these numbers surprise me in a positive way.  That's a pretty close third, I think.  The thing is, as it happened in New Hampshire, the Paul campaign had higher expectations for this caucus, so this third place has been seen a bit of a let down.

What does that say of the success of libertarian ideas this election cycle?  Is libertarianism failing to make inroads into mainstream America because Congressman Paul could not amass more votes than Gingrich (and Romney, for that matter) even in freaking Nevada? Or does it imply that libertarianism has become so mainstream that a fairly close third place in Nevada (after a fairly close third in Iowa and a second place in New Hampshire) is just a sign of abject failure?

I think Dr. Paul is achieving something important with his campaign.  I'm not saying anything original here, it's been a talking point everywhere for months now that Dr. Paul's main goal may be simply to obtain enough delegates in the primaries to affect the Republican platform this election, perhaps add a libertarian plank or two.  But it does amaze me how successfully he has been bringing some well-established libertarian ideas (end of the "war" on drugs, sound money, etc.) more to the forefront of political discussion.  At every debate so far Paul has consistently received less time than most other candidates, and I expect this to be still true as we proceed down the primaries calendar, but being part of a smaller field he's still received a great amount of exposure.  The next debate he might be one of three (assuming Santorum drops sometime soon).  It's going to be progressively harder to ignore the good Congressman and his ideas.