Ann Romney: "We've given all you people need to know."

[_EAllusion]

Tons of money pours into research for deciding what color scheme to pick on throwaway political banners you see dot the landscape. You know why? That has more of a impact on voter behavior than if Romney happens to be this guy:

[_Kishkumen]

Romney won the nomination almost exclusively on the back of his support from the establishment Republican leadership and its funding mechanisms. His lack of support comes from religious right leaders, which play a major role in ground organization.

I doubt he had big Tea Party support.

I think you overestimate how impactful things like "issues" are on voter behavior. Romney could be found blatantly cheating on his taxes and it wouldn't move his support more than a point after the temporary impact died down. Sure, this feeds into a narrative of plutocratic excess, but if people don't latch on to that, it will be something else. Assuming we are just talking about him being stereotypically rich, the worst thing about this is that it controls news cycles with negative Romney coverage for a bit, which is why Republican advisers are calling for Romeny to get it over with in the doldrums of summer.

Say what you will, there are few people I see who are really excited about Romney, and I have not seen anyone deny the importance of excitement about a candidate in moving people to get out to vote.

[_DrW]

Not that this makes a big difference, but while Rove is not Mormon, he was raised amongst the Mormons in Salt Lake City and educated at the University of Utah. I remember hearing him say that he was very familiar with Mormonism and its doctrines and that he had many friends growing up (and now) who are Mormons.

Why am I not surprised?

[_EAllusion]

I doubt he had big Tea Party support.

The Tea Party and religious right heavily overlap at this point. They're nearly one in the same. The Tea Party was a schizophrenic marriage of Ron Paul Revolution types with Sarah Palin religious right types with the latter marginalizing the former gradually over time. Romney locked up most significant Republican endorsements early on. I think you have to go back to Bob Dole to find the most recent example of a non-incumbent doing as well as Romney in that regard. He created an aura of inevitability out of the gate, had weak challengers that overlapped in their demographic support, and as a consequence got the backing of most Republican leadership. He is the establishment Republican candidate.

Say what you will, there are few people I see who are really excited about Romney, and I have not seen anyone deny the importance of excitement about a candidate in moving people to get out to vote.

Obama has a slight enthusiasm edge over Romney. Romney has an enthusiasm problem among the religious right - the non-Mormon part of it anyway - but you are underselling his support if you are taking your anecdotal experience too far. Romney isn't struggling to raise money for a reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html

But that misses the point. Enthusiasm does matter, but things like this issue are only marginally impactful on it outside of the initial burst. Don't confuse media horserace bluster with what actually drives underlying voter behavior.

[_EAllusion]

Kish -

Maybe it would help to look at the issue from a reverse example. You know how it is a standard tactic for Republicans to claim the Democratic candidate is the most liberal person eva and is basically Karl Marx in a modern suit? That line of attack is still used on Obama despite him being the most right-leaning Democratic president of the modern era. And that's saying something in a universe where Bill Clinton exists. In order to feed this attack, they always latch onto some issue to sell that narrative. The only question is what's it going to be.

Well, the Democrats have built in narratives to attack Romney, and if it's not tax returns, it will be something else to feed them. That right now it happens to be his tax returns is incidental. The content of that issue is pretty much meaningless as far as voter behavior goes. Playing with swing voter feelings, which is what this is about, matters a little (not a lot), but that's going to happen either way. It's a plug and play strategy.

[_Kishkumen]

The Tea Party and religious right heavily overlap at this point. They're nearly one in the same.

I think that's an exaggeration. The Tea Party was not a Religious Right phenomenon in the first instance, and I doubt that it has been coopted to the point that one could say "they are nearly one in the same" and be correct about it. In any case, it doesn't matter, because the people who supported the Tea Party in times past, whether they stuck it out with the Religious Right folk or not, are still unlikely to be keen on Romney.

Obama has a slight enthusiasm edge over Romney. Romney has an enthusiasm problem among the religious right - the non-Mormon part of it anyway - but you are underselling his support if you are taking your anecdotal experience too far. Romney isn't struggling to raise money for a reason.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... _blog.html

But that misses the point. Enthusiasm does matter, but things like this issue are only marginally impactful on it outside of the initial burst. Don't confuse media horserace bluster with what actually drives underlying voter behavior.

I don't watch or listen to much media, so I am not confused by it. I simply disagree with you on a number of points. I think you overplay the significance of anti-Mormon bias among Religious Right folk as something that will work against Romney and you underestimate the problem that his generally unlikeable nature poses for him. It is the latter that I find far more significant.

In any case, I don't think this is important enough to argue further. We're doing little more than blowing hot air at this point.

[_Kishkumen]

Playing with swing voter feelings, which is what this is about, matters a little (not a lot), but that's going to happen either way. It's a plug and play strategy.

Since the number of Independents has risen significantly, I do think it matters a lot.

[_EAllusion]

Since the number of Independents has risen significantly, I do think it matters a lot.

You might be surprised at how many self-described independents actually vote in a predictable partisan way. That's why Romney is going to get a polling bump once polling models go from registered voter to likely voter. Republicans are more likely to say they are independent and register accordingly. That aside, I think you missed my point. I'm not saying swing voters don't matter much. I'm saying issues like this have only a marginal impact on their behavior, and to the extent it does, it's not so much about the content of the issue as the negative aura that can be created with it. That, however, makes it interchangeable with any number of things that would be talked about endlessly on MSNBC if it wasn't this.

[_EAllusion]

I don't watch or listen to much media, so I am not confused by it. I simply disagree with you on a number of points. I think you overplay the significance of anti-Mormon bias among Religious Right folk as something that will work against Romney

I'm not explaining why it is the case. I'm describing it. By far Romney's weakest area of support among conservatives is among the religious right. That's why Santorum finished second to him. It's why religious right leaders flocked to every candidate but Romney. But, Mormons are overwhelmingly part of the religious right and Romney has intense, enthusiastic backing from them. That's why struggled in primaries in the deep south but took the Jello-belt in a cake-walk. So that's why I say "non-Mormon" religious right.

[_Kishkumen]

You might be surprised at how many self-described independents actually vote in a predictable partisan way. That's why Romney is going to get a polling bump once polling models go from registered voter to likely voter. Republicans are more likely to say they are independent and register accordingly. That aside, I think you missed my point. I'm not saying swing voters don't matter much. I'm saying issues like this have only a marginal impact on their behavior, and to the extent it does, it's not so much about the content of the issue as the negative aura that can be created with it. That, however, makes it interchangeable with any number of things that would be talked about endlessly on MSNBC if it wasn't this.

So, I am not sure why we continue argument, since you are now talking in terms of a "negative aura," whereas I am talking about likeableness. I am happy to change over to the expression "negative aura," if that helps any.