It's not secret that most people vote on likability and messaging. Could that person be my boss? A local cop? My minister? The manager at my grocery store? The nice bank teller down the street? The guy who pumps my gas. A local teacher or my next door neighbor? These are the internal questions people ask themselves. Would they want someone the could trust in their local community, to be the leader of our nation? Messaging is key too, since it encapsulates the basic theme of one's policies and why they think they're superior to their opponent. Romney is betting on that people will vote for him because the incumbent is ineffective and that he isn't Obama. That isn't enough. Obama is validating the last four years but also selling the next four years and beyond. Saying what you're going to do is more effective than saying what hasn't been done.
The average person doesn't use policy as a means to make a decision at the ballot . Most people, quite frankly, don't have the time or interest to follow politics that much. They don't have the capacity to critically compare and contrast each candidates' plans or their value systems. Only those who care enough and have the luxury to spend time going deep in this stuff, are the ones who (maybe) vote based on policy or overall philosophy.
The fact that Romney is awkward, robotic and stand offish is bad enough. But not having a consistent and clear message this late in the election is bad, really bad. Even worse is not being on the same page as your running mate or your party.
re-existing conditions and children on parents' plans:
