May I submit a hypothesis?
It is this: Every election since 1980 has been about the Republicans.
Come 1992, GHWB failed -- chiefly because he reneged on "No new taxes, read my lips." The Republican incumbent did a very unRepublican thing...and he got whacked.
In 1994, thanks chiefly to Newt, Republicans promised to do some very Republican (i.e., conservative) things. And they won a re-sounding victory.
In 1996, after the GOP Congress had caved in a face-off, they ran a placeholder against a beatable incumbent. They lost.
Shimmer dissolve to 2006. The Democrats didn't win majorities in Congress, Republicans lost them -- because they weren't passing Republican (conservative) legislation. 2008 was a repeat of 1996.
It boils down to this: If a Republican president and a Republican Congress do Republican (conservative) things, they can be re-elected for perpetuity.
Yes, I do remember, and was madder than hell at the Perot voters at the time. In retrospect, I see that:
1. Third party votes did NOT favor the incumbent, as some Obama-phobic hysterics claim.
2. Clinton won with a full 57% of the vote opposing him, and two years later he got his ass kicked by the Republican Revolution, which did a lot of good for this nation.
3. Had HW Bush been re-elected on a majority, the Republican Revolution would probably never have materialized. Had he been re-elected on a plurality, maybe.
4. Clinton was re-elected on a plurality of 51% of the popular vote against him, and was impeached before his term ended. Most Americans voted in opposition to him both times. Had most Americans voted for him one or either time, the GOP wouldn't have kept the upper hand as much as they did.
Risking a plurality Obama win OR risking a plurality Romney win is a better risk than handing Romney a mandate. Pray for a plurality, and vote for a plurality.
Remember: you reap what you sow.