Republicans don't want to win the presidency

[DaShi]

Do you really think Democrats won't show up to vote against Romney because they're not enthralled with Obama?

[Boris Godunov]

Boris, do you really think republicans won't show up to vote against Obama simply because they're not enthralled with Romney?

I don't know for sure, but I think it's a truism that it's harder to get turnout for a candidate who doesn't enthuse the base versus one who does. If the feeling among the GOP base is that Romney is just another liberal not much different than Obama (and yes, they DO tend to think that way about any Republican who isn't a bat**** crazy ideologue), then many will feel they shouldn't bother to vote at all. Keep in mind that Bush didn't enthuse the base in 2000, either, and he was more conservative than Romney [really] is. Hence the nail-biter finish, despite Gore's obviously terrible campaign.

[DinoDoc]

(and yes, they DO tend to think that way about any Republican who isn't a bat**** crazy ideologue),

They are already prepared for that:

As all of these candidates’ campaigns remind us — endlessly — there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate.

Yep, don’t we all know it? Politics is the Pageant of the Imperfects.

Every single one of these front-runners is a pro-TARP interventionist with a variety of problematic Big Biz/Big Government impulses and alliances.

Which one will do the least worst job against Obama in the debates, on the campaign trail, and ultimately in the White House? Which one will insult the base the least? Which one will actually have the energy, competence, and credibility to directly challenge Obama’s corruption, profligacy, class-warfare demagoguery, progressive pandering, and epidemic failures?

[Tupac Shakur]

Polls don't mean anything this far out.

They sure do to Nate Silver in his analysis you provided, didn't they?

From the Nate Silver analysis...

The other major unknown is the identity of the Republican nominee. This year it could make an unusually large amount of difference. In recent polls against Mitt Romney, Obama’s lead is just 1 percentage point — but he leads Herman Cain by 8, Rick Perry by 11 and Michele Bachmann by 14.

At some point early next summer, head-to-head polls like these will become the most important predictors of the November result. But this far out they can be misleading and inaccurate. In a survey conducted in late September 1983, Ronald Reagan actually trailed Walter Mondale by 2 points, and in October 1991, George H. W. Bush led Bill Clinton 55 to 20.

And from the companion blog post...

The estimates also do not reflect Mr. Obama’s head-to-head polling against the various opponents, which are not highly reliable at this stage of the campaign.

Reading is fundamental, kids.

[Tupac Shakur]

Obama in 2008 also had the benefit of running against the party that was presiding over a terrible economy. He'll be on the other side of that issue in 2012.

Sure, but that's an entirely separate issue than that of Romney being able to get big turn out from conservatives, which was the point at hand. Ideologues aren't swayed by economic indicators.

No, it is not an entirely separate issue; everyone cares about the economy, including right-wing ideologues. James Carville was right!

[Felch]

Admiral Stockdale was a ****ing hero, you ungrateful piece of ****.

Holy living ****. You could stop a bullet with those medals.

[The Mad Monk]

Do you really think Democrats won't show up to vote against Romney because they're not enthralled with Obama?

Staying home in droves is a known response of the Left to an unsatisfactory candidate -- one not shared by the Right.

[The Mad Monk]

Hell, even inclement weather can be a disaster for the left.

[Archbob]

Dude, 9/9/9 plan from sim city 4 is boss.

[Tupac Shakur]

Agreed.