Hispanic voters, the fastest-growing demographic group per the 2010 Census, will play a decisive role in the 2012 presidential election. That is, if they don't stay away from the polls due to:

• Disappointment with President Obama's lack of political courage or action on long-promised reform of U.S. immigration regulations, or
• Intimidating new restrictive voter ID laws "enacted since the 2008 election may cause more than 5 million eligible voters to find it significantly harder or even impossible to cast ballots."

Citizens of Hispanic heritage comprise a huge, and hugely influential, portion of the population in five of the 14 battleground states:

• In Nevada, Hispanics are 26.5% of state population
• In Colorado, 20.7%
• In Arizona, 29.6%
• In Florida, 22.5%
• In New Mexico, 46.3%

Hispanic-Americans are also a sizable minority in battleground states North Carolina (8.4%) and Virginia (7.9%).

Which explains why Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villlaraigosa is Chair of the 2012 Democratic National Convention which will nominate Barack Obama to a second term in the White House...

Which explains why President Obama has traveled to Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona many, many times since the 2010 elections...

Which explains why, in late April, the Obama reelection campaign spent "about $145,000 on broadcast advertising aimed at Hispanics... according to data from the media tracking firm SMG Delta. The ads are running in Florida, Colorado and Nevada"...

Which explains why Obama campaign spokeswoman Gabriela Domenzain responded forcefully and quickly to Republican Mitt Romney's remarks two weeks ago that "The Obama administration has brought hard times to Hispanics in America. Under President Obama, more Hispanics have struggled to find work than at any other time on record"... Rebutted Ms. Domenzain:

"Once again Mitt Romney is not telling the truth about the President's record and it's no surprise why. He is not only on the wrong side of every Hispanic voter priority, but also Hispanics stand to lose the most from Romney's insistence on the same failed economic policies that created the economic crisis, including his plans to give massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at the expensive of economic growth and the middle class, allow Wall Street write its own rules again, and even let foreclosures 'hit the bottom.'

"President Obama believes we should grow our economy and create jobs that reward hard work and responsibility, and we are seeing results. Under the President's leadership, we've seen 25 straight months of private-sector job growth, 2 million Hispanics have been kept out of poverty, taxes on small businesses have been cut 18 times and Hispanic unemployment has declined 2.1%."

In 2008, Hispanic votes in New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Florida caused Democrat Barack Obama to win those often-Republican states, all which voted to reelect President Bush in 2004. As a direct result, Obama won the 2008 White House race. (See Why Red States Turned Blue in 2008 for details.)

In 2010, Democrat Jerry Brown decisively won California's gubernatorial race over long-time Romney advisor and close business-community colleague, Republican billionaire Meg Whitman, because Brown attracted 63% of the Hispanic vote. In California, 37.6% of residents have Hispanic ancestors.

But in 2008, Barack Obama's soaring, bright promises of immigration reform energized Hispanics to support Obama over McCain by a margin of 67% to 21%. (See Obama Campaign Promises: Immigration Reform.) In 2012, those promises remain almost entirely unfulfilled.

And in 2010, Jerry Brown won Hispanic votes primarily because of his deep, decades-long record of actively supporting and caring about the needs of that community. President Obama has no similar track record.

Hispanics will, indeed, play a decisive role in the 2012 presidential election. But will it be by voting in droves for President Obama? By the Hispanic community believing in Mitt Romney's conservative-leaning economic prosperity agenda?

Or will it be by staying home... uninspired, disenchanted, unenergized, and fuming over feeling used in 2008, then forgotten by the White House?

My guess is that because of Republican Romney's unusually tough, inflexible rhetoric on immigration reform (self deportation?), Hispanic voters will turn-out to cast a very large majority of their ballots for President Obama in November.

But they will do so reluctantly. And they will rightfully expect Mr. Obama to firmly push the DREAM Act and other immigration reform measures with the new 113th Congress.

"Game On!" declares The Economist this week about the 2012 presidential election between President Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

I disagree with this respected news weekly, though, when the editorial staff opines, "Barack Obama leads in the head-to-head polls. But there are still seven months to election day, and Mr Romney has a fair chance of victory in November."

Given the present state of issues and related political theater, I believe that incumbent Obama has scant chance of losing to national political office neophyte Romney for four main reasons:

• 1. Women. In 2008, women comprised 53% of presidential voters; 56% of those women cast their ballots for Democrat Obama. Recent 2012 polls of the "gender gap" give President Obama a 16-point lead over Romney with women voters.

• 2. African-Americans. In 2008, African-American voters comprised 13% of those who cast presidential ballots; 95% of ballots cast by African-Americans were for Obama. "African-American women were the demographic with the highest percentage of electoral participation in 2008," per a Rutgers University professor.

  By all accounts, African-American support for Obama remains sky-high and energized in 2012, despite dismal unemployment rates continuing within the community.

• 3. Hispanics. In 2008, Hispanic voters represented 9% of those who cast ballots for the presidency; 67% of those ballots were cast for Democrat Obama over Republican McCain.

  While the Hispanic community is universally disappointed with President Obama's failure to make inroads in reforming U.S. immigration laws, Mitt Romney is stunningly unpopular with this demographic group because of his rigid opposition to liberalizing immigration for 12 million undocumented workers and their families. "A recent Pew survey found less than a quarter of all Hispanic voters would back Romney in a general election," per NPR.

• Conservative evangelical voters. It's no secret that Rick Santorum's social-conservative followers are not enamored of Mitt Romney. They don't trust that flip-flopper Romney really, truly agrees with them on abortion, access to birth control, gay rights, gay marriage and the like. And they are wary of his religious allegiance to Mormonism, which they deem to be a non-Christian cult.

  In 2008, just 34% of all presidential election voters identified themselves as "conservative." Of those voters, 78% cast their ballots for Republican John McCain. Conservative evangelical voters certainly won't vote for Obama in 2012. But if an unenergized fraction of socially conservative Republicans... say 25%... don't vote in 2012, that would radically erode Mr. Romney's chances of winning the White House race.

Do the math. As is in April 2012, the numbers just don't add up for a Romney victory in November.

The game may be on, but the Democratic side has an ace pitcher in President Obama and crucial demographic advantages that make likely a lopsided victory in November. Barring a national catastrophe, I don't see this changing.

In 2012, Wisconsin is the new political bellweather state. And despite having voted for every Democratic presidential candidate for nearly 30 years, Wisconsin is a crucial battleground state in 2012.

The first sign that Wisconsin had changed from solidly liberal to rife with Republican rivalry was when three-term incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold, a nationally respected progressive Democrat, was shockingly defeated in his 2010 reelection bid by Tea Party-affiliated, Libertarian-leaning Republican Ron Johnson, a political neophyte.

Also elected to Wisconsin office in 2010 was Tea Party gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker. Mere weeks after Gov. Walker, the son of a Baptist preacher, took office in January 2011, he pushed the newly conservative Wisconsin legislature to pass severe budget-cutting bills that also sharply curtailed basic labor union rights.

And Wisconsin progressives... who apparently took their state domination for granted in 2010 elections... reawakened with a ferocious political roar. A recall election for prickly Gov. Walker will be held on June 5, 2012, after more than 900,000 citizens petitioned to dump him from the state capitol. Recall of Walker was spearheaded by a passionate coalition of infuriated Wisconsinites, including:

• Labor union members, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. 422,000 Wisconsin workers, representing 16% all workers in the state, belong to labor unions.
• Women, who comprise 50.4% of Wisconsin's population.
• Senior citizens, who comprise 13.7% of Wisconsin's population.

Wisconsin is unique among 2012 presidential battleground states, though, for two reasons.

In 2012, Can Obama Win Wisconsin Again?
Wisconsin voters are largely white (86% per 2010 Census), and Christian (80%). Among state residents, only 5.9% are of Hispanic heritage, and only 6% are African-Americans.

Most hotly contested 2012 battleground states host an amalgam of ethnic heritages and religious faiths. Think Florida, with its highly diverse and active voter base, for example, or North Carolina, with its uneasy blend of religious conservatives and a sizable African-American population.

In 2008, Barack Obama won only 43% of the white vote nationally, but won 54% of Wisconsin's white vote, which represented 89% of all Wisconsin ballots. Can Obama win Wisconsin again in 2012, after the new rise of Badger State Republicans?

Will Wisconsin Republicans Continue to be Led by Extremists?
Have Wisconsin Republicans learned lessons from the failure of Gov. Scott Walker's ultra-conservative ideology and his stubbornly tin-ear to the Wisconsin electorate? Or will Wisconsin Republicans continue to be dominated by Tea Party extremists?

If socially conservative, Tea-Partiers continue to lead Wisconsin Republicans, then extremist Rick Santorum should fare well in tomorrow's presidential primary election. The Obama White House would be delighted, of course.

But, if, as polls predict, more moderate Mitt Romney easily prevails in Wisconsin's presidential primary race, then Obama's reelection campaign team should be forewarned about 2012: Wisconsin Republicans have backed away from political extremism, and are ready to support a more moderate candidate with a bona-fide chance to beat President Obama.

Historically Democratic blue-state Wisconsin stunned the nation in 2010 by not reelecting deeply respected Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold.

A big primary victory by moderate Republican Mitt Romney over Tea Party-aficionado Rick Santorum in Wisconsin will send a warning shot to the White House that must-win Wisconsin might vote Republican in 2012 for the first time since 1984.

In 2011, a top pollster reported Wisconsin's approval for President Obama at 47.4%, and his disapproval rating at 43.8%. To win Wisconsin over a moderate Republican, Obama will need to raise his approval ratings in 2012.

Dangerously missing from the Republican presidential conversation is any meaningful discussion of foreign policy.

In 2000, 2004, and 2008, Republican candidates George W. Bush and John McCain proudly (and endlessly!) touted muscular foreign policies and detailed national security agendas as central planks of their conservative platforms.

In 2012, Republican front-runners Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum rarely muster serious public analysis of foreign policy matters. Instead, they glibly repeat boilerplate gobbledygook as...

"A Romney foreign policy will proceed with clarity and resolve. Our friends and allies will not have doubts about where we stand and what we will do to safeguard our interests and theirs. Neither will our rivals, competitors, and adversaries. The best ally world peace has ever known is a strong America." (Source - Romney campaign website)

Or...

" Rick Santorum understands that those who wish to destroy America do so because they hate everything we are - a land of freedom, a land of prosperity, a land of equality. Rick knows that backing down to the Jihadists means that we are only putting our foundational principles at greater risk.

President Obama's is "an approach that views America not as an exceptional leader but, rather, as just one more country in the sea of nations, not intrinsically better or worse than any other nation, not intrinsically better prepared to lead than any other nation. It is an abdication." (Source - Santorum campaign website)

I believe that Romney and Santorum have largely excluded foreign policy and national security issues, formerly winning issues for conservatives, from the 2012 campaign for three reasons:

• 1. They don't truly know what the hell they're talking about, and they know it. Romney has precisely ZERO foreign policy experience. And as a U.S. senator, Santorum never served on the Foreign Relations Committee, and dabbled little in foreign policy matters. In truth, Santorum knows little more than Romney about the complexities of reality-based foreign policy matters.

• 2. The eight-year Republican tenure of the Bush/Cheney administration, from 2001 until Obama's 2009 inauguration, created a destructive mess of U.S. foreign policies, and left America's reputation and standing in the international community in sullied tatters.

• 3. President Obama has amassed a record of tremendous accomplishment in foreign policy matters and in keeping America and Americans safe.... a record that neither Romney nor Santorum want compared to their meager experience in and knowledge of foreign relations and national security policies and practices.

Take a few minutes to read President Obama's Middle East Victories and the 2012 Election.

Then ask yourself the obvious, common-sense question: in today's dangerous world, how could any rational U.S. citizen possibly vote in November for either Romney or Santorum for president... and believe that America and Americans are safer for their vote?

Related Reading

• The Obama Doctrine on Foreign Intervention and War
• President Obama's Foreign Policy Agenda