The campaign was NEVER built on hero worship or personality like Obama or Palin in 08---that's not bad if you have it. But rather for a year I've been harping on the fundamentals of ORGANIZATION and fundraising, and so far Mitt's organization buries McCain's 2008 effort and is outdoing Obama's.
I could give you specifics of how the process works but suffice it to say almost NO voter goes untouched, and usually with MULTIPLE "touches".
So, to your comment, this has never been about feelings or euphoria, hence there is really no place for overconfidence to sink in. PS, I have posted here for months that R/R would win by about 4% with about 320 EVs. I think I have to scale back to 310 because of NM and maybe NV. Just don't think there is time to get them in.
I agree. Romney was not my first choice in the primaries, but, on reflection, he IS the best person to go up against such an "empty chair" as Obama. Obama's past is full of corruption (even though the MSM won't report it) while Romney'a past is just the opposite. Romney earned his position in life by hard work and intelligent ideas, while Obama has been given everything he has achieved on the basis of his race, and, by his own admission, is lazy. He will not do much better in this debate because he will not have prepared any better for it than he did the first one. I love Clint Eastwood and would've liked anything he said at the convention, but his analysis and illustration of the "real" Obama through the use of an empty chair was brilliant!