You speak towards the measurables of the consequences of a platform, I speak towards the electoral consequences
of the posturing.
I think the Big Dog can have electoral consequencea, you seem to say folks only vote for the top of the current ticket (I agree), I say that choice or perception of the top of the current ticket can be influenced by Big Dogs.
Not by 10s but by 1/10th ... or, in the case of one of the most favorably considered Americans for the last 50 years, by maybe a whole point.
While folks routinely make the top of the ticket argument, when they focus on failure, they spend a moment on that and so much else. So maybe it was just McGovern in 72, and none of that other crap meant anything.
That is not how those in the field recall it.
Romney has himself, Ryan, Christie, Murdoch and maybe somebodyelse somewhere making a point.
Obama obviously has Obama, Obama, and Obama (the nature of incumbency) but there is this also this glaring recognition that congress moves NOTHING, and a perception that there was a day when they did ... and that day has something to do with Bill Clinton.
If its good for 2/10ths of a point is swings it is over.
| 
