海角大神

Mother Jones magazine on Monday published a clandestine video of a Mitt Romney fundraiser at which the GOP nominee said that 47 percent of US voters 鈥渂elieve they are victims鈥� entitled to government support and that 鈥渕y job is not to worry about those people."

鈥淚鈥檒l never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,鈥� Mr. Romney told donors, according to the tape.

Umm, OK. Is this a game changer for the election? The liberal blogosphere erupted Tuesday with charges that this apparent disdain for half of American voters disqualifies Romney from the presidency. Some conservatives have defended the statements, saying they accurately reflect a culture of dependency, while others have basically thrown up their hands.

Conservative William Kristol, , said Romney鈥檚 comments were 鈥渁rrogant and stupid,鈥� for instance. (To be fair, he equated them with Barack Obama鈥檚 statement at a fundraiser four years ago that rural voters 鈥渃ling to guns or religion.")

Well, Romney鈥檚 polarizing statement may not be good for the future of American political discourse. But it is unlikely by itself to make any difference in the polls.

That鈥檚 because individual controversial statements seldom do. If ever. Over at the , George Washington University associate professor of political science John Sides has posted data making this point.

In 2008, for example, Mr. Obama鈥檚 鈥済uns or religion鈥� statement had no discernible effect on voter presidential preference. In 2012, other things that the press widely judged to be gaffes, such as Obama鈥檚 鈥渢he private sector is doing fine鈥� statement, similarly made no difference. After Romney issued his controversial statement saying the Obama administration 鈥渟ympathized鈥� with Middle Eastern anti-American rioters, the polls actually moved in Romney鈥檚 favor 鈥� though as Mr. Sides notes, that is most likely because of the natural tightening caused by the fading of Obama鈥檚 convention bounce.

鈥淭he best case for saying that 鈥榞affes matter鈥� is that actual voters are persuaded to change their minds because of the gaffes. If they don鈥檛, then it鈥檚 tough to argue that 鈥榞affes鈥� are really 鈥榞ame-changers.' And, in fact, usually voters don鈥檛 change their minds,鈥� writes Sides.

However, in our view this doesn鈥檛 mean that the video won鈥檛 make Romney鈥檚 road steeper. Voters carry a picture of each candidate in their minds, produced by numerous bits of information, and right now, Romney is generally not seen as empathetic. He鈥檚 far behind Obama on such measures as 鈥渦nderstands the problems of people like me."

The Romney campaign has worked hard to try to change that image, with Ann Romney in her convention speech talking about their early married years, and the candidate himself fleshing out his biography in his acceptance speech. That鈥檚 now perhaps gone with the wind. In the fundraiser video, Romney sounds like a main character from Ayn Rand鈥檚 objectivist manifesto, 鈥�Atlas Shrugged."

鈥淭he video exposes an authentic Romney as a far more sinister character than I had imagined,鈥� writes Jonathan Chait, in his New York Magazine blog. 鈥淗ere is the sneering plutocrat, fully in thrall to a series of pernicious myths that are at the heart of the mania that has seized his party.鈥�

If Romney does win, it may be because voters have decided that other factors outweigh his Richie Rich image, not because the image itself has softened.

At a press conference Monday night, Romney stood by his remarks but added that they were 鈥渘ot elegantly stated."

He then framed his statement, not as an attack on a particular segment of voters, but as an ideological discussion.

鈥淒o you believe in a government-centered society that provides more and more benefits, or do you believe instead in a free-enterprise society where people are able to pursue their dreams?鈥� said Romney.