So I don't think I can easily sum up the popular support for revolution in one post. One one hand, a lot of the stuff pushed in modern day textbooks is overgeneralized, but on the other I don't think it's fair to say that revolutionaries duped people into the war. Plenty of people had their own reasons to be disgruntled for the current system, whether they supported revolution was at times a completely different matter. For one, there was no war for independence in the 50s and 60s, so there wouldn't be talk of it at that point. during the early days of protest, calling for independence was a fringe and very radical idea, and war was something of a last resort. There is the old adage that only a small portion truly cared enough to call and fight for revolution: 1/3 supported the patriots, 1/3 were loyal, and the rest were indifferent (though I don't know if those proportions are wholly accurate, but I think it shows a sentiment). To say that those like Paine convinced them of something with no legitimate cause is an argument from those like Charles Beard who dismissed whiggish histories of the Revolution IIRC.

The levels of discontent varied by colony and by class. The argument of taxation and representation popular with New England was not widely represented in places like the Carolina backcountry, where most of the frustration was with the ruling class and a restricted access to western lands. There are numerous other reasons including the Intolerable Acts in the 60s that peeved a lot of people, and although they were ultimately struck down, it still left a bad taste in their mouth. However, it's not enough to simply be angry, that anger needs to be directed, in part by the charismatic writers like Paine.

Your typical colonist received information much in the same fashion we do now: either through media or word of mouth. Print media was huge by the mid 18th century, most colonies had newspapers with subscribers all over the landscape, news was readily consumed by all. Newspapers had transcribed letters, speeches, sermons, arguments from a subscriber; broadsides (large paper sheet with basically an essay) could be posted all over town to read. Pamphlets though were likely the most consumed print media, since they were much cheaper to make and sell, and varied from poems and short stories to political treatises. And then the ideas would ultimately be dispersed verbally among communities. Colonists were very political and it wasn't taboo to talk politics in public, taverns and public houses were the center pieces for political discussion among the commoners, and even the wealthy. The fact that so many pamphlets were written shows some proof that the common people at least gave the war some amount of consideration, as words alone aren't enough to motivate anyone I'd say. Bernard Bailyn covered the impact of pamphlets and print in his books Pamphlets of the American Revolution and The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Paine was not the only writer, there were dozens, perhaps hundreds of others engaging in this conversation.

The push for independence was not the same as the resentment felt by colonists, but rather a result of years of inaction or felt resentment from the British government. Most of the protesters wanted the gov't to reverse some policies and address some grievances, the call for war did not happen until really the first shots and Lexington & Concord. However, even then, the war wasn't quite yet about independence. Continental Congress still begged for the king to act as a conciliator between the colonies and Parliament, most delegates did not wish for war. The final push for independence wasn't made until King George III issued the Proclamation of Rebellion, essentially declaring the rebellious portions of the colonial population as enemies, making it clear to the delegates that they did not have his support. Paine's Common Sense , published a short time after this proclamation further sealed the sentiments for independence. the pamphlet was widely read, especially among the Continental Army. Even then, the fighting was already going on all over the colonies.

Now of course, this doesn't mean everyone bought it. You had a large amount of colonists that supported the king. Loyalists had reasons as much as the patriots, often deriving from their social standing, or sometimes by circumstance. Usually entrenched merchants and political officials supported the British government, but you also saw Anglican clergy and ethnic groups. I think that may be another discussion though.

Professor Joanne Freeman has a [multi-lecture session] (http://openmedia.yale.edu/projects/iphone/departments/hist/hist116.html) available free right now in transcript, audio, or video form that goes in depth on the build up to independence (and beyond). Dr. Freeman is a member of the history dept at Yale University and specializes in colonial and early American politics and society. I highly recommend listening to or watching a few of the lectures (about 40 min each, 25 lectures in total), particularly starting at #5 for the Stamp Act. #10 is specifically about Common Sense (watch em all and you can tell all your friends that you studied Early American History at Yale!).

There was very little support for actual independence pre 1765 (even moreso pre the Sugar Act of '64). This mainly changed after the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 and a large contingent of resistance to it was in place before it even took effect, though it was largely a movement for more liberty and not particularly national freedom.

The [Massachusetts Circular Letter] (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/mass_circ_let_1768.asp) and Patrick Henry's [Virginia Resolves] (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-07-02-0369-0002), both resisting taxation without representation, would be great examples of what spread independence fever early on, helping spawn things like the riot resulting in the Boston Massacre and attacks on loyalists like Dr John Calef and Gov Hutchinson himself (about which Dr Freeman notes patriots were so swept up in destroying his home they were dismantling his roof come sunrise, which was a new type of "protest" from what had traditionally happened). Fueling this was folks like Sam Adams, who helped write the Massachusetts Circular Letter that Calef opposed, and Paul Revere who made several engravings, including [A Warm Place In Hell] (https://ipswich.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/calef_revere_cartoon.jpg) depicting Calef and the other 16 assemblymen that voted to retract the Massachusetts Circular Letter being forced to hell by a pitchfork holding devil.

Helping feed the fire further South were words and actions by John Dickinson, who had published [Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies] (http://www.masshist.org/database/viewer.php?item_id=707&pid=2) in which he says, as Dr Freeman relates;

...most of what (Dickinson) does is he uses past precedent to argue against the right of Parliament to directly tax the colonies. He asserts directly: we're not talking about independence; we're just talking about past precedent. However, he also says, and this is a quote from him, "We cannot be happy without being free. We cannot be free without being secure in our property. We cannot be secure in our property, if without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away, that taxes imposed on us by Parliament, do thus take it away." That's really clear, direct logic. Right? We can't be happy without being free. We can't be free without being secure in our property. We can't be secure in our property if without our consent, others may take it away, and Parliament seems to be taking it away.

When printed in Boston this made it much easier to support the first steps of rebellion. When taken with responses from other colonial assemblies to the Massachusetts letter, it seemed the other colonies were in support as well - truly starting a "13 colony" unity.

Additionally, Dr. Franklin had sent the Hutchinson letters to Sam Adams in the early 1770s to share with the Massachusetts Committee of Correspondence, which also inspired civil unrest and riots when they were printed in June 1773 (these letters basically detailed a plan of escalation of troops and reduction of liberties to bring Boston into submission.) While Franklin asked that the letters not be released, printed, or copied, he himself published [Edict by the King of Prussia] (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-20-02-0223) and [Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One] (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-20-02-0213), both taunting the British government.

Patrick Henry would again become influential with his now famous [Liberty or Death] (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp) speech of 1775 that declared a call to arms;

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

There were numerous players in the build up of patriotism, but even so it never broke the 50% mark of colonists. Many never gained the patriotic spirit and remained neutral. It certainly can't be simplified to "a few crafty deist industry leaders mobilized the laymen into action based on falsehoods." They had legimate grieviences concerning consent of the governed. Even so, it was a movement that never took hold in a majority of proud British colonists, with about 20% supporting the Crown (many of them in the elite and business class like John Randolph - the father of founder Edmund Randolph and brother to founder Peyton, Joseph Galloway - who presented the Galloway Plan of Union in Congress of 1774, William Franklin - son of Benjamin and Gov of New Jersey, Isaac Low - who helped start the first boycott of British goods and whose brother would later vote on ratifying the US constitution in NY, etc). Despite the pamphlets, newspapers, assembly letters, and impassioned speeches, the average colonial citizen perceived the war as a risky endeavour that was likely to be more costly than beneficial. But seriously, "podcast" those lectures.

Edit for clarity and link repair