So, what kind've person would vote for Mitt Romney after not voting for H.W. 92, Dole, Bush 00, Bush 04 or John McCain? Why is Mitt Romney a better candidate than those guys?
Not sure how many of us there are who fit that. I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96, and for a third-party candidate in 2000, and for Obama in 2008. Except for 2004, when I supported Bush, I fit your description pretty well. I'd venture a guess that I may be the best fit for your description among the posters herein, so I'll give it a go:
Mitt Romney is a hard sell. I didn't vote for him in the primary election, and he's not necessarily a better candidate than any of those whom you have named. It's just that I'm all for displacing Obama--not because I don't like him. I still think he's a fairly ethical character--I'm just keen on repealing the PPACA. That said, I'm finding Willard harder and harder to take seriously. Oh, I'll probably vote for him, once he's nominated, if he's nominated, and I'm pretty confident about the GOP taking both chambers of congress, but increasingly I don't really see him defeating Obama in a head-to-head contest.
I suspect it'll come down to a referendum on Obama, rather than a true contest between the President and whatever dregs the GOP runs against him. At the moment, I'm all for the devil we don't know yet, and at the moment, that devil happens to be Willard Mitt Romney. I'd rather it were Jesus or Gandhi or somebody like that, but sometimes you just get Candidate B. And Candidate B will, ultimately, have to dance with the one that brought him to the dance. He can play etch-a-sketch all day every day while Washington burns, for all I care, so long as he signs the repeal of the PPACA when it comes across his desk. I think he'll do that.