Nixon won for POTUS in 68 with a 43% plurality, almost identical to BJ Clinton in 92.
So, two time Congressman, Senator, two time vice president, a stolen election against JFK in 1960, failed to knock off incumbent gov, Pat Brown in 62, and in 1968 he became president, followed by 1972, one of the biggest landslides in history, becoming the first republican presidential candidate to win the Catholic vote.
Romney is a political failure. Romney has won a single election that he won with less than 50%, in his more than 20 year career, and he served that single term as a failure and had to give up his goal of reelection, leaving office with 34% approval and turning the seat over to the democrats.
Romney ran against nobodies for 2008 and lost to two guys with no money or organization after he broke spending records and spent 50 million dollars of his own money, then in 2012 he squeaked it out as America kept desperately rotating among his nobody challengers for someone besides Mitt, then he lost the election against Jimmy Carter’s second term, an election that was almost impossible to lose, and it wasn’t even close.
Most of the voters in America rejected Nixon! Just like most of them rejected Clinton when Perot filled the void left by "Read my Lips" weenie Republicanism. But both were elected by a plurality and lacked any mandate; Nixon ended up resigning, and Clinton was impeached, though not convicted. Coincidence?
Listen, if in 2016 it's the same Democrat vs Democrat Lite as it was in 2012 for the Presidential, I am going to vote for the best limited government candidate on the ballot, which means THIRD PARTY (actually, second party). At BEST, my candidate wins and government gets pruned to bare essentials. At WORST, my vote weakens the mandate of whichever liberal wins, the Republican or the Democrat.
It's the best use of my vote to move things right.