NOW that Rick Santorum has exited the race, the time is drawing nigh for Mitt Romney's big pivot, for his dash to the centre, for a hearty good shake of the campaign Etch-A-Sketch. The bloody primary predictably took a toll on Mr Romney's poll numbers, the details of which suggest he might be wise to repair his reputation among the ladies. Dan Balz and Jon Cohen of the Washington Post report:

Romney faces a huge deficit among female voters, one that more than negates his advantage among men and represents one of the biggest challenges he and his advisers face as they turn toward the November election. Obama's edge among women gives him a clear lead among all registered voters in a matchup with Romney.

What to do?!

Michael Gerson, a former speech-writer for George W. Bush, argues that Mr Romney could make himself more attractive to female voters by adopting something along the lines of Mr Bush's "compassionate conservatism" in order to reassure women and independents "that Republicans give a damn about someone other than Republican primary voters", and that he truly cares about "improving the lives of the vulnerable". "Try not to look like a heartless bastard!" is good if not exactly inspired advice.

Meanwhile, Kathleen Parker (Mr Gerson's fellow Post pundit) briefly entertains the idea that the right's recent adventures in slut-shaming, forced ultrasounds and retrograde religiosity about contraception may have damaged the conservative brand. I happen to think this is precisely the source of Mr Romney's probably fleeting problem. Indeed, I think this is the upshot of the polling evidence Ms Parker offers in support of the idea that "[w]omen do not monolithically think with their uteri", an indisputable truth the converse of which will now haunt my restless nights. However, she interprets her polls to mean that women were not actually put off by the right's throwback shenanigans. So she finally and boldly suggests that Mr Romney's problem with women flows from the fact that women do not especially care for him. "It is entirely possible that women simply aren't that into Mitt", Ms Parker observes. "He's just not their kind of guy. Health care, taxes, budgets, debt ceilings, capacity utilization, Chinese currency: so important. But at the end of the day—does he have “it”?

Perhaps Mr Romney can spend ten or 15 minutes each morning practicing finger guns or Blue Steel in front of his mirror. He'll know he finally has "it" when his aides are forced to tear him away.

In sharp contrast to Mr Gerson and Ms Parker, Walter Kirn, a novelist writing a crack political column for GQ, actually says something interesting:

That folks just can't relate to stiff rich Mitt, the man who not only doesn't feel your pain but may secretly think that you brought it on yourself, is the first press-created artificial fact of this election cycle. The second one is that this matters, and matters profoundly, especially to women, whose status as voters is equal under the law but who are still treated by many political journalists, even conspicuously liberal ones, as semi-free electoral automata driven by their hearts, their hormones, and their unique sensitivity to 'vibes.'

Kathleen Parker: j'accuse!

Mr Kirn continues:

There's one great non-artificial fact about Mitt Romney: he's nearly secured the Republican nomination despite his lack of glandular misery-sensors, his non-Powerball based wealth, and his queer-in-the-old-sense dated Ike Age diction ... What [voters] crave, it appears, is above-average Americans—well-above average ones, in fact, with Ivy League graduate degrees. Why else, in primary after primary, general election after general election, after all the populist dust has cleared and the folksy campfire smoke has blown away, do the victors emerge waving Ivy League Degrees rather than crucifixes or bowling trophies--and not just any Ivy League degrees, but graduate-level degrees from Harvard or Yale, the schools that won't even concede they're in a league but just surrounded by an entourage.

And it's not as though Barack Obama emanates warmth, either, as Mr Kirn rightly notes. Indeed, I've always thought Mr Obama comes across a diffident, condescending bore who is also good at smiling and pretending to love basketball and dogs. What I like about Mr Obama—what Mr Kirn suggests many of us like about him—is that he's a tough, smart cookie and a savvy operator. He's a maestro of the meritocracy; we can see why, and we like it. To paraphrase David Mamet, the White House is for closers. Mr Obama is demonstrably a closer.

If Mr Romney manages to close, it won't be because he's donned rugged earth tones, or proven himself a considerate, cockle-warming listener. If he manages to close, it will be because he's persuaded enough of us, man and woman alike, that he's the abler, uberer mensch.

That, and a slack recovery.

(Photo credit: AFP)