Delighted liberals likely presume that President Obama's newly revealed personal stance on gay marriage will boost his vote-getting in November.

Among most Democrats and in the bluest of Democratic-blue states, it will, of course. But Mr. Obama hardly needed a boost among those constituents; Romney was never their candidate, especially over the most progressive U.S. president in modern times.

Presidential elections are won by garnering electoral votes in crucial battleground states... those complex amalgams of Republican-red and Democratic-blue voters who combine into stews of purple indecisiveness and unpredictability. In 2012, fourteen battleground states are luring the lion's share of attention and spending by both President Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney.

How will Obama's profoundly progressive pro-gay marriage view play in those 14 key states? Here is my best prognostication...

• New Hampshire will be unaffected, or could even cause a new swell of support for President Obama. Gay marriage has been legal in the Granite State since January 1, 2010. And notoriously independent New Hampshire residents support most anything that deters government intrusion into personal lives.

• In Iowa, where same-sex marriage became legal on April 27, 2009, President Obama's reelection chances will be unaffected. Given a strong conservative Christian presence in Iowa, though, I doubt the issue will create new support for the President.
  
• In Nevada and New Mexico, Obama's pro-gay marriage views should have minimal impact on election results. Both states have extremely high Hispanic populations coupled with negligible political influence by conservative Christian groups. And both states are preoccupied with economic woes.

  Several reports even suggest that young Hispanic activists have been energized by President Obama's Obama's pro-gay marriage stance.

• In Arizona, Hispanics comprise nearly 30% of state residents. But their political influence has historically been offset by a sizable white, anti-immigrant, conservative Christian community that vehemently opposes all pro-gay rights. If Fox News is correct that "Obama's Gay Marriage Shift Energizes Immigration Activists," then the President's newly public stance can only help, not hurt, him in Arizona.

• Likewise in Colorado, pro-gay marriage support by the state's Hispanic community, 20.7% of Colorado residents, would be offset by powerful might of the large, adamantly anti-gay rights conservative Christian churches centered around Colorado Springs.

  Given that men comprise almost 51% of all Coloradans, my sense is that Obama's pro-gay marriage stance could hurt him slightly in November. Statistically, women are more inclined than men to support socially liberal causes.

• African-Americans are a huge and powerful portion of voters in four 2012 battleground states: North Carolina at 23%, Virginia at 20%, Florida at 16%, and Michigan at 14%. CBS News reported this week:

  "In a recent Pew poll, 65 percent of American blacks reported thinking of homosexuality as wrong, while only 48 percent of whites did... Also, black voters played a disproportionate role in getting the anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 passed in California in 2008. The central role of Christianity in black America has much to do with this."

  In 2008, 95% of African-American voters nationally cast their ballots for Obama... as did 95% of African-American voters in North Carolina, 92% in Virginia, 96% in Florida, and 97% in Michigan. With such truly extraordinary support, Obama's campaign team is betting that the black community will again vote in admiring droves to reelect the President, regardless of this one issue. I believe that political calculation is spot-on correct.

Four Rust-Belt Battleground States

Which leaves four 2012 battleground states, each located in or near the economically beleaguered Rust Belt: Ohio, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

Wisconsin citizens are hyper-focused on ongoing labor union spats with Tea Party Republicans in state government, and on economic and public education issues. My guess is that Obama's pro-gay marriage stance has no effect in Badger State voting on November. Domestic partnerships for same-sex couples have been legal in Wisconsin since 2009.

In Missouri, President Obama's approval ratings have hovered disastrously below 50% for most of his White House tenure. Missourians disapprove of ObamaCare, and they're plenty unhappy about federal spending, too. Show Me State residents don't like Republican Romney much more than Democrat Obama, though: polls consistently show Obama and Romney tied among Missouri voters. Gay marriage, pro or con, is among the least of Missouri's concerns about the 2012 presidential contest.

Which leaves only Ohio and Pennsylvania, both predominantly white, working-class states with massive economic anxieties, major labor union presences, and deeply held religious beliefs.

I can't hazard even a guess at to how gay marriage issues could sway Obama's 2012 electoral fortunes in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Both states are quintessential political blends of Republican red and Democratic blue voters, making murky business of election predictions. As always in presidential election in recent decades. Writes the Washington Post, "In Ohio, gay marriage debate may change few votes but inspires some, annoys others." Exactly. No one knows the impact.

In summary, it appears that President Obama's newly revealed personal pro-gay marriage beliefs may slightly boost his vote-getting in November in many of the fourteen 2012 battleground states, and is unlikely to hurt him in more than a couple of those states.

Trust me: the White House believed that well before President Obama "unexpectedly" shared the results of his personal evolution on gay marriage.

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.