For all of buzz generated by the New York Times story about Mitt Romney being disliked by his GOP rivals for the presidential nomination (even here), it is a story that raises one of my favorite questions: “So what?”

 It is far more relevant to consider whether a candidate is liked by voters, and the degree to which being liked by voters matters.  A good way to start that analysis is to compare Romney with Maverick Sen. John McCain. 

After all of the shouting about the conservative poobahs opposing the McCain campaign, one of the few valid points people like David Brooks make is that McCain does enjoy a fair amount of support among self-identified conservatives, despite his well-documented record of taking non-conservative positions on a host of issues.   A recent Pew Poll on point found the following:

McCain receives solid favorable ratings from all key groups of Republican voters. Republican-leaning independents offer nearly identical ratings of McCain as do those who identify as Republicans. Fully two-thirds of conservative white evangelical Protestant GOP voters have a favorable view of McCain, as do nearly three-quarters of other conservatives (72%), and moderate and liberal Republicans (74%). McCain also receives virtually identical ratings from younger and older voters, men and women, and voters of different educational backgrounds.

Looking at the flip side of the issue, Pollster.com’s Charles Franklin recently observed:

Also surprising, given McCain’s testy relations with so many Republican groups, is the relatively small number who would refuse to vote for him. McCain suffers only 9% of Republicans who would never vote for him in the Pew poll. Huckabee is at 8%, Giuliani at 15% and Romney at a devastating 20%.  (Emphases added.)

Similarly, a glance at the current general numbers from Rasmussen show that McCain has a 56%/38% favorable/unfavorable rating, with a 22%/33% vote for/against ratio.  In comparison, Romney has a 42%/48% favorable/unfavorable rating, with a 19%/47% vote for/against ratio.

Based on the amount of time radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh (and the above-linked Mark Levin) spend discussing McCain’s record, I suspect that many of McCain’s opponents believe that their fellow citizens would abandon McCain — if only they knew his record.

That premise may be entirely incorrect.

In a November 2007 Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, respondents split 46%-44% on the question of whether personal qualities or issue positions were more important in choosing a candidate for president.  In a March 2007 Associated Press-Ipsos poll, 55% of those surveyed considered honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.  Only one-third looked first to candidates’ stances on issues.  Note that the November poll forced a choice, whereas the question in the March poll was open-ended. 

Such numbers suggest that McCain benefits enormously from his image as Mr. Straight Talk, regardless of his record.  McCain may have flip-flopped on issues every bit as much as Romney, but it’s Mitt who gets tagged with that label. 

As I previously suggested with respect to Huckabee, establishing McCain as a flip-flopper is more likely to separate McCain from his adherents than merely pointing out how many of those positions have not been conservative.  Romney did this to Huckabee with great effect in New Hampshire, so it is slightly baffling that he is not doing it to McCain now.  After all, Romney is already being seen as the “negative” candidate, so he might as well be good at it.

This leads into the broader, but related issue of likablity.  I have previously noted that likability has long been a factor in presidential campaigns, especially since the advent of television.  Political junkies should remember that many people do not scrutinize the candidates’ records in great detail:

“Voters really don’t vote on the issues to any significant extent,” said Ken Warren, pollster and political scientist at St. Louis University. “It’s mostly because they don’t know how the candidates differ on the issues. The difference are so subtle, particularly in primaries, that even analysts have a hard time keeping them straight. So (voters) rely on the candidates’ persona instead.”

The confusion created by subtle differences is compounded this year by a crowded field of candidates and a quick-paced primary schedule. That leaves voters to ponder whether they simply like the candidate.

It is important not to come off as a luxury car salesman.

In this regard, the AP-Yahoo! poll shows McCain to be at least marginally more likable than Romney, though that is faint praise (Rudy Giuliani was rated most likable in the GOP field, though I note that Mike Huckabee was not included in this poll).  The same poll shows that a majority of respondents believe likability is very or extremely important, with another third calling it moderately important.

The good news is that respondents rated other qualities, including being strong, decisive, honest and experienced even more highly than being likable.  However, as I often note, interpreting polls can be as much art as science.

Consider the following University of Michigan/University of Chicago study:

After watching 10-second silent video clips of competing gubernatorial candidates, participants in the study were able to pick the winning candidate 58 percent of the time—significantly better than chance. When the sound was turned on and participants could hear what the candidates were saying, accuracy dipped to 53 percent—no better than chance since the study had a two percent margin of error.

Researchers found that the accuracy of predictions based solely on silent video clips was greater than the accuracy of predictions based on knowledge of which candidate was the incumbent and information about the prevailing economic conditions at the time of the election, including the unemployment rate and any changes in personal income for the year prior to the election.

Even Fredheads — who generally seemed to support him based on his positioning as the “consistent conservative” — may have been influenced to some degree by style.  Thompson’s Senate record was not all that different from McCain’s.  And there is an argument that McCain’s stridency and his profanity-laced tirades when opposing his fellow Republicans is a factor in conservative opposition to his campaign. 

Call it “The McCain I Know” factor.

Update:  At Pollster.com, Mark Blumenthal has a new post up on honesty and integrity in the Democratic race.