From David Brooks in the NYT yesterday: the reality that a Romney presidency compromising with a Democratic Senate would lead to a decent amount of necessary reform (including dropping the Bush tax cuts), while an Obama presidency would lead to very little advance and continue the general political gridlock in DC.
Romney isn't much of a right-winger. That's all a sales job that's been rather effectively ditched in recent days and weeks to emphasize he'd really rule center-right. If he squeaks in, that's the mandate he'd have. He'd be realistic, as he was in Massachusetts, with the Democratic Senate, and things would get done. Plenty of compromises would follow, and Romney would largely be villified by the far-right - not the far-left.
In truth, Obama isn't much of a left-winger. He'd continue ruling center-left, but the nutcases in the GOP-dominated House would continue doing their best to sabotage all progress, pushing him, in his second term, primarily into foreign affairs as a refuge. For Obama to win, as he looks like he will (just barely), via a very negative campaign, he'll enter office with virtually no mandate. Dems will be happy enough to forestall the GOP nutcases in the House, but we'd be looking at 4 more years of stasis (and no, the complete nonsense sales-job of America going whatever by 2016 under Obama doesn't register with me). Frankly, I think Romney would likely do a far better job of finessing Obamacare (originally, Romneycare) into full existence.
I agree with Brooks' analysis completely. As much as I dislike the vast majority of the Republican agenda, this is my primary reason for preferring Romney to a second Obama term: I see the promise of advance under Romney; and I see virtually no chance of any under Obama.
And I prefer some progress to none - simple as that.
But, in truth, I have no individual say in the matter. Indiana will go Romney by a wide margin, so my vote will be meaningless.