Actually, retrospectively, I think Paul won.
It wasn't his best performance, but he successfully provoked a fight with the frontrunner, something that increases his perceived importance considerably.
Romney, meanwhile, is unlikely to have gained any new supporters from his good performance.
If you look at the debate as 1) a confrontation between two front-runners, Romney & Perry and 2) a contest among lower-tier candidates for attention and relevance, there's a compelling case for Paul as the winner of #2.
Of course, Paul also flubbed some answers (I'm thinking of explanation for leaving the party in 1988 - I don't think that the question itself was not answerable, but Paul's answer was meandering and puzzling to anyone without background knowledge) and struggled to give concise answers. Sound bites are stupid, but any candidate should acknowledge that they drive coverage and should try to throw out a few during a debate. Paul has a clear message, so this shouldn't be a huge challenge. Paul successfully appealed to his fervent supporters and managed to knock one of the front-runners a bit off-kilter, but he didn't manage to make a compelling appeal to other voters, and that's what he needs to do if he wants his campaign to break above 5-15%.
Poll
