Presidential elections really have only two issues: whether the bases, right and left, can be fired up to guarantee voting and which way the center - the indifferents - falls.
National elections in non-presidential years make this clear, because the indifferents tend not to vote. The number of voters went down by half from 2008 to 2010. But one group - the far right - actually increased its percentage of voters. Naturally, far right candidates did exceptionally well in that election. The fall from 2004 to 2006 went the other way, with the right less enthusiastic and thereby enabling a Democratic takeover.
As late as the 1960s, both parties had liberal, moderate, and conservative wings and could run candidates who would generally appeal to majorities in local districts, even if they were out of the party’s mainstream. That world is gone. Republicans are far right and right; Democrats are centrist and left. (There is no far-left voting block of any size anywhere in the country.)
The rest are a motley group. Some are true independents, most are what I call the indifferents - there don’t pay much attention, they don’t want to have to pay attention. They are repelled by extremists on both sides. Their votes cannot be counted on, and they are very likely to be swayed by negative advertising because it’s easier for them to latch onto a reason to vote against rather than making the effort to learn what to vote for. Conversely, give them a charismatic candidate, with a positive message, and they will surge toward him.
You see where I’m going with this. This year, more than any previous presidential cycle, is going to be decided by swing voters. They’ll have every reason to be repelled by extremist positions, and the charismatic optimistic candidate is the one who is already in office.
In some years this would be offset by the extremism firing up the base. But Romney is not the base’s candidate; those who’ve been energized for the primaries will be on the outside of the actual campaign. I don’t think this will sink the Republican vote significantly, but it precludes the 2010 rise that worked so well for Republicans. Liberals may be somewhat disappointed by Obama’s performance but that will also translate into almost no effect.
The bottom line is that Romney is more electable than Santorum or any of the others precisely because he is not running to the right in the primaries. Most of what’s being said now will be forgotten by September, after the primaries, when the indifferents finally tune in. But independents are already running towards Obama, by double digits in most polls, and if the larger Republican party continues to make scary statements that can be used against them, this trend will take over the indifferents. Since the only states that count in the final result are a few swing states that are likely to be decided by them, this is a grossly disproportionate few percent of the total population.
The Republican mainstream has every reason to be scared and is already showing it. Look at the paucity of endorsements Gingrich has gotten from current Representatives and Santorum has received from current Senators. Look at where the big money is going. Look at what past leaders have been saying. The establishment is gibbering at the thought of a base conservative getting the nomination. Local politics can be swayed by a fired-up segment; the establishment gets what it wants in a national election. That’s why I’ve been saying for a year that Romney will get the nomination and the others had a 0% chance, not a low percent chance. They’ll get it but the price they had to pay is huge, and probably decisive, which is why I’ve also been saying that Obama will win, although I haven’t put a 100% guarantee on that. Indifferents, by definition, are not predictable.