[Dr. Sivana]

To your question, I’m not sure these “death bed conversions” will have much impact.

It gives "permission" to the fence sitters.

You may have a point though, in that the endorsements are simply a reflection of what is happening, than a shaper of it. Reagan certainly get this much traction in 1980, but there were a flurry of non-endorsements nd Anderson endorsements that were effectively the same.

[Starboard]

My view is that a lot of these endorsements are just one time events. Highlighting Obama’s failings over a longer period of time probably would have had an impact on voters but the press has been, as Rush so aptly puts it, “drive by’s” who willfully ignored anything that was not positive to the administration.

I’m afraid it’s too little too late, to help sway the election in a meaningful way. But you may be right that this might sway some of the fence sitters that are still out there.

[Mygirlsmom]

From an editorial in USA today - Glen Reynolds describes a "preference cascade"

....The polls are looking good for Romney, and he's picking up all sorts of endorsements all of a sudden. This has caused some Republican enthusiasts to suggest that what we're seeing is a "preference cascade," and they may be right.

What's a "preference cascade?" In his book, Private Truths, Public Lies, economist Timur Kuran looked at the way "preference falsification" can distort societies, and then collapse suddenly.

The classic example is in a totalitarian society, where everyone has to pretend to love the Great Leader on pain of death. If the authorities manage it right, 99% of the populace can be ready to revolt -- but won't, because each individual thinks he or she is the only one who feels that way. This works until some event suddenly shocks the system, and people realize that they're not alone. When that happens, things can go south in a hurry. That's a "preference cascade."

The United States isn't a totalitarian society, but media bias has the same sort of effect: By privileging some views and suppressing others, the media give Americans, and itself, a distorted idea of reality. Then, when things crack, it's a big surprise.

That may be what's happening here. Obama was presented as unbeatable, and a lot of people believed it -- until, suddenly, he looked kind of beatable after all. Once that happened, everything was different.

Where I disagree is it's not that Obama was presented as unbeatable, but as an intelligent, capable, hard-working, inspiring leader.

That is what's being demonstrated as false, but people wedded to political correctness won't acknowledge it for fear of being labeled "racist". Until they realize they are not alone, and that labeling him a complete disaster is truth, not racism.