#voter behavior

This is why conventions are relentlessly scripted. In this clip, several things appear to be happening all at the same time. All of them make the Republicans look like jerks.

--At the exact moment Zoraida Fonalledas, a member of the Republican Party's actual organization, was walking to the dais to speak, a group of Ron Paul supporters started shouting "let them sit!," demanding that the delegation from Maine, which included lots of Paul delegates, be recognized and allowed to vote. (Maine was not seated due to typical party shenanigans.)

--In response, Romney delegates began shouting "USA" over the Paul delegates, drowning them out. As a woman with a Puerto Rican accent began to try to talk.

--leaving cameras and microphones hearing and seeing chants of "USA! USA!" as Puerto Rican woman tried to speak.

Even if one accepts -- as I do -- that the USA chants were not directed at the speaker, but were intended to quell the Paul rebellion, this is a tough scene for the Republicans. Their reputation among Latino/a voters is not good, and given the long term demographics of the US population, no party can survive unless it can figure out how to appeal to such a large and fast-growing constituency. Democrats have been far more successful at appealing to most groups of voters who immigrated or whose families recently immigrated from Latin and South America. Republicans haven't.

From the Party's point of view, this is a nightmare. Rogue, angry delegates set in motion an event that has the potential not just to cost the party an election, but to cost the party whatever chance it had to appeal to a group in the long term. So they script the conventions to the point of a Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, and hope for no protests.

So it turns out that when asked a question about being likable as a person, Mitt Romney answered by citing the fact that he had been elected president of his fraternity at BYU ... which isn't a fraternity but whatever.

This is a pretty obvious stretch. In college some guys at a sort of frat decided Mitt Romney, with a famous and wealthy father and likely really good organizational skills, would be a good president. Or, maybe no one else ran. (It happens all the time.) In either case --  and lots of alternative ones -- being elected a fraternity president is hardly a profound symbol of likability. Plus, given that Mitt Romney is 65 years old, it's an example that's about 45 years out of date.

The thing is, I actually feel for Mitt here. Romney strikes me as what might called a "resume" candidate. By this I mean that when you look at his resume he comes across as a talented, highly successful person who has had lots of experiences that might well shape one into being a successful president. He certainly has a broader range of experiences than Barack Obama did when Obama ran for President. On paper, Romney is a remarkably impressive person.

However, we don't elect resumes. We elect people. And like lots of other highly successful people -- Hillary Clinton pops to mind -- Romney  struggles to excite or engage his audience. His resume cannot top his personality. Meanwhile, his opponent is Mr. Personality. Put Barack Obama on a big stage and give him a microphone and he can sell rocks in a gravel pit. He might not have had that many qualifications for President when he ran in 2008, but he seemed "presidential."

Politcalprof empathizes. I have (I think) a really good university resume and (I hope) a good reputation around campus from my five years as Chair of our Senate. I believe (fingers crossed!) that if you asked people around campus, they'd say they thought that I was a good advocate for faculty and that I helped rather than hurt when push came to shove.

But I also imagine that if you asked those same people if they thought I should have a position of responsibility here, lots would say "no!" -- and quickly. For whatever reasons -- and I don't know what they are, but I can guess -- and despite the fact that they have actual experience with me doing a job that they think I did it well, there is something about me they can't see in a given role. They may be making a mistake -- that's what I like to tell myself when this bothers me -- but that's not the point: it's what they think. So it's what they choose.

This is one of Mitt Romney's biggest problems. He -- unlike me -- needs the votes of millions of Americans to win the job of President of the United States.  That he is running against one of the most charming and engaging persons in American history who is already the President of the United States*, and can't think of any evidence of his popularity more recent than 45 years ago, suggests that he has some real hurdles to jump if he expects to win.

While I wasn't president of a college fraternity -- at least in part because I did not join a college fraternity -- I do know something about the gap between talent and popularity. And Mitt, let me tell you: voters don't need to like you in order for you to win. But it helps.

--------

As we have the Michigan and Arizona primaries today, I thought we should think back to those halcyon days of, oh, seven weeks ago or so (!) when everybody who was anybody saw a Romney runaway with the Republican presidential nomination.

I, too, argued that Romney was likely to win--a position I still take. He has more organization than anyone else, and historically it has been organization, matched with money, that sustains candidates in long, drawn out fights.

But I didn't argue the "easy victory" point.  I didn't argue it for a simple reason: NO ONE HAD VOTED YET.

Media and political commentators love to "declare" things well before they happen--such declarations make them seem important and wise. The thing is, military officers are taught a lesson that is entirely applicable to political campaigns. No battle plan, commanders are taught, survives first contact with the enemy because the enemy gets a say in how the battle unfolds.

Much the same is true in elections: no assumptions survive first contact with the voters because it is the voters, not the commentators, who determine who wins and loses elections.