I've never heard anything so silly. People support various candidates because they agree with their records and their politics. Period.
My point wasn't that people support candidates because of where they are from, rather than because of their positions on the issues.
It was that voters are more inclined to be forgiving of candidates with backgrounds similar to theirs -- candidates from the same part of the country or ethnic group or profession.
In uncertain situations they are more likely to give such candidates the benefit of the doubt than they would candidates of a very different background. And they're more likely to view situations as uncertain when candidates they see as similar to themselves are involved than voters who don't make that kind of identification or connection are.
Voters who view a candidate as alien or foreign are a lot less likely to extend to that candidate the benefit of the doubt, and more likely to view candidates from another part of the country as untrustworthy.
It's not that East Coast conservatives or Republicans would support Romney over a qualified conservative candidate. It's just that they don't automatically write him off, and in the absence of a really qualified conservative candidate they are more likely to support him.
Ann Coulter supports Romney and Christie because she's a liberal Republican - just like they are.
In a way, that proves my point. You disagree with Ann Coulter about Romney and maybe one or two other things and you write her off completely. From where you sit, she looks like a liberal Republican. Someone from Connecticut or Maine who knew Coulter's background and knew actual, living liberal Republicans might have a very different take on this question.
From your earlier post:
As a native Californian who lived there at the time, I strongly supported George Bush in 2000, and would have supported him even if he were from Massachusetts.
...
Here's another: Rick Perry. Although he's the Governor of my state, and has presided over a long run of prosperity in this state, he's not really my kind of guy. I think he's far too moderate, and I don't trust him to make the conservative choice on every decision.
That's the other side of the coin. Maybe because I don't live in Texas, the similarities between Bush and Perry are more apparent to me than the differences.
It's hard to get a winning and a losing candidate, one who ran after 8 years of a Democrat in office and one who ran after 8 years of a Republican, on level ground for a comparison, but if I had to say who was more moderate or liberal, I wouldn't automatically say Perry, given Bush's Washington connections and "compassionate conservative" message.
If I were from Texas and had known each man as governor, I might be more of your opinion, just as if you saw Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins up close, you might not assume Ann Coulter was somehow their missing triplet.
Anyway, my argument was that pointing out that that people always put their faith in candidates and candidates always disappoint might work in Romney's favor. If one is already disillusioned and "pre-disappointed" one might go clear-eyed into the election.
While senators and representatives do rally around around a president of their own party and follow the lead of the White House, congressional Republicans are less likely to blindly follow Romney, after having given Bush the benefit of the down and being disappointed by his leadership.
But having made such allowances for Bush, I can't quite see making Romney out to be a monster or abomination, especially not at this point, after having failed to come up with a credible candidate who could beat him. I can't see having vested all that trust in Bush, to stamp my foot and say that Romney is beyond the pale.
I don't have any privileged insight into Ann Coulter's mind and instincts, but I suspect part of her support for Romney and Christie is based on the knowledge that voters are always extending the benefit of the doubt to candidates and expecting them to be something more than they've already shown themselves to be, and wanting this to be more than a one-way street, with Northeastern Republicans like herself always putting their trust in candidates from other parts of the country and not having this reciprocated.
Of course one's take on that would depend very much on what part of the country one came from. If you live in Texas and Republicans have been likely to rally around candidates from Texas you aren't going to take to the point of view that I'm guessing she may have. I don't know if she's right or wrong about Romney, but I don't dismiss her view out of hand.
It was that voters are more inclined to be forgiving of candidates with backgrounds similar to theirs -- candidates from the same part of the country or ethnic group or profession.
Well, that's not what you said. If you'd expressed it as you've done above, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would have acknowledged your viewpoint and moved on.
That said, it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round. Just because someone's from my neck of the woods, doesn't mean that I'm going to give them any extra points for being a 'home boy'. On the other hand, some folks will.
I don't think you can make that case for Ann Coulter's support of Christie and Romney, though. She's not simply giving two politicians the benefit of the doubt when they've slightly wobbled on an issue or two. No - these guys are nowhere near the conservative reservation, yet she (supposedly a fire and brimstone conservative) gives them her full-throated support. At the same time, she cuts Palin to ribbons, as badly as any liberal pundit. That says a lot more about Coulter's real views, than anything else.
Back to your regional bias theory....yes, I've seen it. It's the 'favorite son' effect. Blacks voting overwhelmingly for Obama, Mormons voting overwhelmingly for Romney, Texans getting behind Rick Perry, etc. I get it. My only point is that that sort of loyalty only counts for so much in most people's evaluations of a candidate.