Nate Silver has this to say on the Republican Senate primary:

…for all his libertarian and tea-party dressing, Paul in fact ran on a fairly conventional, conservative platform. He’s pro-life, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration … there are only the faintest hints of libertarianism here. This was probably a good thing for him because Kentucky, which has traditionally been socially conservative but economically moderate, is pretty much kitty-corner to the libertarian side of the political quadrant. This was actually very clever, in a lot of ways — Paul’s last name (and decision to affiliate himself with the tea party) gained him national attention and fundraising and earned media, but to people in Kentucky, he ought to have been a very comfortable choice who was somewhat more fresh-faced than his rival. The branded product beat the generic one.

Paul might have some trouble in general election, especially after somewhat underwhelming turnout in the primary (Democratic turnout was actually 60 percent higher, although Democrats enjoy a substantial registration advantage in Kentucky). But that’s more because of his inexperience and standoffishness and less because of his platform.

Your thoughts? Is Paul winning votes from the majority of Kentucky Republicans, then getting a boost from the libertarian-leaning minority? Can that hold up in the general election?