I wonder if Romney and his campaign advisors looked at the very small group of undecided voters and wrote the speech to appeal to them. Otherwise, I don’t get this speech. If what I said is true, it suggests that the campaign assumes that the undecideds at this point are pretty clueless folks who don’t vote on policy preferences, ideology, or anything appearing to be a good reason to choose one man over another to lead the country. Instead, they vote on sensibility or gut instinct and the Romney team didn’t want to offend them. Therefore, Romney aimed to make them feel slightly warmer about his candidacy rather than potentially offended by something specific or with depth – or a passionate defense of a particular worldview.
Like I said – otherwise, this speech made little sense. It was a little NBC Olympic bio, lines cobbled together from Reagan, some stump speech stuff about his opponent, and then some Peggy Noonan-style rhetoric that just doesn’t seem appropriate for our difficult times.
I guess one could also assume that the campaign people understand the electorate better than I do and the undecideds want something different than a policy wonk with strong preferences like myself would. This may mean, a la Bryan Caplan, that the marginal voters who are going to decide this 50/50 elections are not exactly the people we’d like to be selecting the President – but select they will. For those who want to see Obama retired, they better hope so.
As I noted last night, Ryan-Paul 2016? And btw, am I right to think that the Republicans down in Double and Triple-A are much stronger than the Democrats in the minors? Indeed, that they seem so much stronger than this current generation of Republican politicians (McCain, Romney, etc)?