Republicans have been out to oust their greatest enemy, President Barack Obama, since he flattened the supposedly unbeatable McCain in the 2008 election. Mitch McConnell, the highest-ranking Republican in the Senate, famously went on record as saying that making Obama a one-term president was his “single most important goal,” and the rest of the party seems to share in his enthusiasm. So, we should expect to see Republicans pull out all the stops to beat Obama, right?

Wrong, it seems. As November looms closer, there’s a strange disconnect between the determination of Republicans at large and the quality of the candidates the GOP fronts. In a survey by the New York Times, fully 50 percent of the South Carolinians who voted for Romney in the state’s primary feel dissatisfied by this year’s lineup. That same survey showed that voters care more about Romney’s potential to beat Obama than they do about his morals, experience or politics.

There are popular Republicans. Republicans who get people excited. So why aren’t they running? As repugnant as it sounds, I think that the GOP is in a position of weakness and is trying to play the odds.

The first thing to understand about this election is that Obama is starting out with a huge advantage. In American politics, the incumbent will nearly always defeat his opponent. Usually, he can only be deposed by scandal or by being spectacularly unpopular, which Obama is not.

Obama has a far wider base of supporters than any of his Republican opponents. He struck down the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy; therefore, it is likely that most homosexual Americans will support him. He is our first African-American president, and in the 2008 election, 96 percent of black voters supported him. As he is a Democrat, it is likely that a majority of women and Hispanics will vote for him. He has an overwhelming statistical advantage, and it is very unlikely that any Republican challenger will be able to overcome it.

Now consider this for a moment: in today’s political environment, losing a presidential election cripples you. Reflect on the careers of Al Gore, John Kerry and John McCain. All three of these men were prominent politicians at one time, and all three ran for president and came in second. And most importantly, none of them have been relevant to the political arena since they lost. The process of running for president is a brutal one, and a candidate who does not emerge victorious will almost certainly be too marred to go for another try.

Now, consider what these two facts mean for the GOP. Any Republican who runs against Obama will almost certainly lose, and having lost, they will be hamstrung. They will cease to be an asset to the GOP. Why, then, would the GOP bother to run a strong candidate? Why would they bet so much on a losing hand? It makes more sense for the party to bide its time until 2016, when the playing field will again be even. If this is what they are choosing to do, perhaps it is why the current Republican lineup is so disappointing.

How, as caring voters, should we respond to this situation? The important thing is to make an informed vote, no matter who gets the nomination. To simply vote for the Republican candidate because he might beat Obama is to reward a cynical and manipulative ploy by Republican brass. Make a real choice; show that you care. Show that appeals to apathy and partisanship will not be rewarded. Maybe we can send a message, and if not, we will still have done our duty as citizens. And no matter how things turn out, we can at least be proud of that.

Nathan James is a freshman majoring in public relations. His column runs bi-weekly on Mondays.