@Richard. Having term limits apply to the next generation of politicians  might just work. Although, I would like to her from HeartofAmerica on how Missouri instituted its own term limits. 
When the founders wrote the Federalist papers they looked to foreign governments and past governments for examples of both good and bad governing structures and used them to support their arguments. Looking at how states instituted term limits would be a good starting point for drafting a plan for instituting federal term limits.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think we need the Federal legislature to change this situation. We could have the states amend the Constitution. If that is true we could avoid the issue of Federal legislators voting against their own self interest. So perhaps we enforce state term limits and over time the state legislatures will be more likely to enforce Federal term limits. That plan would probably take  a very long time, but it seems like all this stuff does.  

I am very impressed with the videos. Not only does it treat American citizens as adults who are capable of understanding these complex issues, but the video is also very snazzy. Hopefully with the growth of social media and YouTube politicians, especially conservatives, can break through the main stream media's death grip on conventional wisdom. There are some negatives to new technology, but the way Paul Ryan is using it has to be a positive. 

I get the sense that Newt might be staying in so that he may grow a size-able chunk of delegates in order to become "king maker" in a contested convention. This also seems to be the strategy of Ron Paul, albeit with much less success as of today. 
As to the question asked, like you Peter, I am scratching my head. I think in order to get to an answer you have to look at it from the perspective of each candidate. The math is so complicated that I doubt I could figure that out and I get the feeling that it is the same for Team Santorum, who is having trouble getting on the ballot, never mind doing delegate math. If you are Newt I think you stay in. The benefit for him would be staying in the headlines, having a chance of winning the nomination, and at the very least  he wields a good number of delegates at the convention. 

The play to the base during the primary and run to the middle in the general theory is the conventional wisdom. However, if that was the case, why did Obama win in 2008?
I think the answer doesn't rely too much on  policy stances, but on marketing those policy stances.  A candidate can have conservative policy positions and market them in a way that moderates will vote for them. 
Romney doesn't need to change his policy issues to the right, he needs to market himself better.  

I don't think more people shopping at Walmart is a great economic growth story. I would add to Rob's  jobs, debt, government waste, and gas prices, the energy industry in general. People generally associate higher taxes on big oil with higher gas prices so that isn't as strong of a political message for Obama as one would think. The natural gas find in North Dakota and Pennsylvania is a great story and Obama has nothing to do with it. People want domestic energy and they realize that Obama is against greater domestic energy production due to his veto of Keystone XL. Santorum and Gingrich are echoing this message, hopefully Romney will soon. 

Like I said, I don't think Santorum needs to win in Florida. He probably needs get second place. That means probably beating Newt Gingrich. I think he is within striking distance. It will require that Santorum make the argument that he is the consistent conservative without a past that will impede him when debate Obama. Like the debate over the individual mandate. Both Gingrich and Romney lose credibility on this argument due to their past policy positions. 
If he can make a similar argument to people with money then I think he can get donors. Voters and donors want to beat Obama they worry that Gingrich's and Romney's past will really hurt them in this regard. That I think is the basic Santorum argument for why he should still be in the race and the one who deserves the nomination.  

If Sanotrum had lost to Ron Paul in the SC Primary then his argument for staying in would have been lost. He needs to make the case during the next debates before the Florida Primary that he is the most consistent conservative that gives him the ability to criticize Obama on all fronts making him the most competitive candidate in the general election. Unlike Gingrich and Romney who are not consistent on Health Care. Gingrich has a history of sitting on couches with liberal counterparts, thinks the Ryan budget plan is social engineering, and has worked for Freddie Mac. Mitt Romney will have  a challenge connecting with voters, be depicted by Obama as the 1% of the 1%. Santorum has that ability to connect with middle class voters, can be a strong debater, and can create a great contrast between himself and Obama. 
 

Santorum does not need to win Florida to remain viable. What he does need to do in Florida is either get second or a very close third to Newt Gingrich. He will then have the credibility to continue into the caucus states with a more proportional distribution of delegates. 

Well, your question only furthers my point. Upon reexamining my statement, I did realize that Paul does not support most free trade agreements, but that does not mean he is against free trade. He sees free trade agreements as government managed trade and therefore he doesn't support them. So in typical Ron Paul/ ideological fashion he voted against something that was a step in his ideological direction because it wasn't perfect in his eyes. 
I say keep him in the party because the Utopian nation-state building needs to stop. Republicans should listen! 

I disagree with some of the terms that have been used in this discussion. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. In fact he is for furthering trade agreements with most, if not all countries. He is for further immigration and I would imagine he is for easing the flow of labor into and out of this country. Isolationism is more along the lines of Pat Buchanan who was against liberalizing immigration, free trade, and military interventionism. 
Paleoconservatism is not the same as libertarianism.  Besides the differences in foreign policy, like I mentioned above, domestically the two are also very different. (This reduction in foreign policy includes military intervention) Libertarianism is for the reduction of government at every level (Federal to local). There is a major disregard for the culture and moral standards in society whereas conservatives will use government to slow the drastic changes in culture/morals that tend to happen in a free society. 
The reason Ron Paul should be in the Republican Party is because of his ideas. I agree with others that his personality and his lack of skills as a politician make him rather annoying, but the followers of libertarianism are an important voting block.