UTAlan, I feel you. The early states have all the say in who gets nominated. Since Romney has won the first two, he has a very high chance of being the nominee. States like Texas should really have a much larger say than small states like Iowa and New Hampshire, but they don't.
About Romney, I at least appreciate that he isn't a religious extremist like Rick Santorum. All the antics of this primary so far make him seem like a very good choice. It's depressing for me, though, that the most likely scenario in the general election will be the two candidates that have received the most money from Wall Street in history will be running against each other. Obama will have no trouble painting Mitt "I like firing people" Romney (also on record saying "corporations are people") as part of the 1% if he so chooses, but I'm not sure he'd want to. I'm surprised no one has mentioned that a lot of Romney's success (and Gingrich's fall) has come from anonymously funded campaign ads. Yes, the religious wing of the Republican Party hates him, but the corporate masters want him in, and they will of course get their way.
Another thing, I like Ron Paul getting all this attention. He's marginalized to the extreme because he pushes on issues that no one in the mainstream will, though many of his positions are quite popular (except in Washington). I honestly wish he'd done better. In another world, if Ron Paul did win the nomination, it would put incredible pressure on Obama. Liberals would have to think carefully about their priorities because they'd be faced with two candidates who each ignore different foundations of liberalism. Obama might actually have to change some of his positions so as to not risk losing their support. As things stand, Obama can safely ignore his base as the Democrats will win the support of their base by telling horror stories about the GOP. I'll be voting for a third party, but most Democrats are more "pragmatic."
