Ron Paul is probably first in delegates right now. Romney NEEDS to win the WTA primary states. Else, he's fucked. This is probably the closest to a brokered convention we've seen in modern history... and then it's anybody's game.

The problem is, the only notable person standing up for principles is Ron Paul. And I don't like those principles.

Romney will always going to struggle in the South. It's why they pushed Florida up (most likely Romney state in the south), and changed all the delegates to proportional... Romney would have been completely cut off the nomination if they remained WTA.

VA will be an interesting one to watch, as only Paul and Romney are on the ballot. No Santorum/Gingrich to divvy up the religious vote.

I'd say that the North East is the strongest region for Romney - perhaps the most moderate region in the country. The fact that Paul has done so well there (let's be honest, he's won the straw vote in Maine) should be exceptionally worrying for the Romney campaign.

If the race hasn't been finalized by April, there's always Texas...  155 delegates, Paul's home turf, strong religious vote, conservative, somewhat libertarian (well, at the federal level), and proportional... could be Paul's single biggest gain in one vote.

Plenty of good things with Ron Paul, but also plenty of bad things. For every pointless part of the government he wishes to get rid of, there is a nessessary part of it he wishes to get rid of as well. 

And the one thing alot of his supporters fail to realize is that most of his plans will NEVER go through, even if he is to become president. The president isn't some omnipotent force that can accomplish anything. What he wants to do is greatly limit the power of the government, and that has to be apporoved by the Senate and the House... which are part of the government... Its not going to happen anytime soon especially since the republican and democratic establishment are both still very much for big government. 

There's no real left-wing in the states.

His foreign policy (entirely the best reason to vote for him) is entirely at the disposal of the President. He can also play the parties against eachother. Remember, he has no loyalty to the establishment Republicans... he'd happily side with the Democrats to reduce the Government in certain aspects, and side with the Republicans to deal with others.

What's important though, is that a Paul win isn't just about his Presidency. It could effectively change the path that America is taking, after a President Paul, would the people accept an Obama again? I very much doubt it, or, at least, not for a very long time. The Congress would also start to reflect that change, not to mention any judges that Paul appoints.

I agree with Senator Jim DeMint. What Paul represents is a change in the Republican party. At the moment, the Republican party is a combination of conservatives and moderates. What's been changing, though, is that the Libertarian voice in the party is growing - Ron/Rand/Marco/DeMint/Amash, etc. Even if Paul doesn't win the Presidency, it will be another successful night in the Congress for the Libertarian movement. Republicans are slowly changing from a Conservative/Moderate party, to a Libertarian/Conservative party. That will have massive implications going forward.

So, no, Paul won't get everything he wants done. He will get a lot done, though, but more importantly, he'll shift the direction so that it will continue going that way.

I see the coming elections as a choice between trending towards tyranny, or trending towards liberty. At heart, I'm an optimist, so I hope Paul is extremely successful... even if he doesn't win the Presidency, the Congressionals will reflect the change.

True, and that includes me. Apparently I'm Center by European standards.

Depends on which part of Europe. Obama wouldn't get elected in Britain. Or, he would certainly be looking at a loss in November, after this term.

And from what I've heard, Britain barely considers itself a part of Europe.

Haha, you are correct.

Though, I think I should elaborate on what I meant - Obama would have got in on all the "hope" and "change" hype that surrounded him in the last election. However, as soon as his party turned against him, he would be out. This essentially happened to Obama with many of the Democrats during the 2010 Congressionals.

Also, when it comes to the dismantling of civil liberties, our courts and our press are not quite as forgiving as they are in America.

Hell, even the BP disaster could have been enough to lose the election.