What's better for Paul's campaign?

[Mynheer Peeperkorn von Thurn und Taxis-Hohenlohe]

You know that Paul strategy is winning delegates, especially in small nobody-cares-states.

What would be better for him? A Newt or a Romney victory in Florida?

[Lief]

Newt, without a doubt.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Newt, even if the Trojan Romney theory is true.

[Korwinist]

Newt, obviously.

Newt lacks the staying power to have an effect in the upcoming caucuses, and his appeal there is limited anyway. However, a weak Romney coming off of two big losses could actually lose states that were either safely with him or fairly safe (Nevada, Maine and Colorado come to mind).

[Mehmentum]

Newt, obviously.

Newt lacks the staying power to have an effect in the upcoming caucuses, and his appeal there is limited anyway. However, a weak Romney coming off of two big losses could actually lose states that were either safely with him or fairly safe (Nevada, Maine and Colorado come to mind).

Add to this the fact that the possibility of a long drawn out nomination fight (and possible late entry candidate) could give Paul the balance of power in terms of delegates.

[Lief]

Also, if the nomination fight is over before the state's hold their state conventions, Paul probably gets many fewer delegates from his caucus victories.

[Angel of Death]

Ron Paul is unarguably the Condorcet loser among the remaining four main candidates and thus clearly needs an as much evenly divided field as possible. Romney may have been damaged so far, but a win in Florida will very likely have the Republican electorate rally behind him in a show of unity.