Rob Long introduces an eponymous theory of winning elections:
You have to act less weird than your opponent. Note: Long's Law doesn't say you have to act normal. For most office-seekers, that's just not an option. Long's First Law of Winning Elections is, you have to act only slightly less weird than your opponent. Think about it: Bush v. Gore. Clinton v. Bush. Obama v. Clinton. Even Obama v. McCain. All of these races were colored, primarily, as a contest between an awkwardly packaged and remote-controlled candidate and one who seemed more, well, human. Less weird. In the epic clash of Mitt v. Newt, what we have is a perfect example of Long's Law. Both of these men are in a race to prove something that is, for whatever reasons, hard to demonstrate to the voters: "I'm less weird than the other guy."
That's a contest that could last a while. He notes Romney's post-$10,000-bet debate pivot to "humanization," according to Politico:
In the past 24 hours, the former Massachusetts governor has talked about his father, experiences while working as a missionary that weren’t even in his memoir — and twice in two days, he’s brought up the Mormon faith that he’s until now largely steered clear of.
The Dish 