Thank you for this. You’ve articulated what a lot of us have been thinking. There are things that pundits, in their coronation of Mitt, have completely overlooked.
From the start, I’ve been amazed that a candidate who’s been running five years, who has the most money, the best organization, and most of the key endorsements — is just barely beating the weakest GOP field in modern times. And most baffling of all, he’s being praised for his performance.
The pundits quickly forgot the size of his underwhelming eight-vote win in Iowa, and ignored the credible allegations that he didn’t win at all.
As I watched coverage of New Hampshire, I couldn’t believe all the talk of a “decisive” win, and a “strong showing.” A New Englander gets 39% of the vote, in a New England state, against a weak field, and everyone goes ape?
All of this is probably making me sound like a bitter Ron Paul supporter who’s jealous of Romney’s “success.” I’m not. I’m not a Republican or conservative at all. I’m a voter, and a lifelong political watcher who is stunned that so many pundits are misreading this race completely, and along the way, affecting its outcome.
I wish more people would read your analysis.

That is a good question. Reagan comes to mind immediately, but in truth I’d have to look at the numbers to be sure what his nomination coalition was comprised of in 1976 and 1980. You may be right about McCain, but again I’d need to check the numbers to be certain.