Your last question is exactly the point that these terrified ABO tunnel-vision folks refuse to ponder.
Many ABOers loathe Romney truly. One of them, unkus, seems certainly to despise Romney but his fear of Obama is overpowering his common sense, and he has posted frequently to folks like me (see my tagline) that we'll go "nuts" if Romney wins.
I can only shake my head sadly: if Romney wins on a landslide and Innovative, unkus, and all the other ABOers ignoring their common sense and better judgment out of fear, anger, and desire for vengeance against Obama, see their anti-Obama referendum suddenly being taken up as a pro-Romney mandate, they are the ones who would go nuts. And only the most naive pollyanna doesn't get that if Romney wins on a landslide, that is EXACTLY what he would do.
And they, like conservatives in Congress, would be impotent and outnumbered by a president, moderate Republicans, GOP Establishment, Democrats, and liberal press who would point to Romney's landslide as a clear indicator that the majority of Americans wanted his "progressive style of governing." Obama would be long forgotten and irrelevant.
That is when we would be seeing ABOers going nuts, because they voted FOR it.
We had all better pray for a plurality regardless of who wins. A plurality is what is what I will be voting for, by casting my vote third party, because there is n such thing as voting "against" -- it is materially impossible; a vote can only ever be for something, even if it's for the rejection of a ballot proposition, and we don't have that thumbs-up-or-down option with individual candidates.
If two of every three voters says "to hell with both of them" and votes third party, there is an excellent chance, considering Obama's low poll numbers, that the winner, whichever one it is, enters office on such an embarassing plurality that nearly two in three votes were cast against him. It would make a downright mockery of Obama, if he was the one to win.
Correction: If ONE in three voters says to hell with both of them ...