-

Yesterday may have marked the beginning of the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign. In a speech to cheering conservatives in Washington, Romney compared himself to Ronald Reagan in 1976, a candidate who didn't win his party's nomination that year but of course won far more than that the next time around.

Romney told his audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference that he could have decided to fight all the way through to this summer's Republican National Convention, as Reagan did in a challenge to the re-nomination of Gerald Ford.

The difference, Romney said, is that this year America is at war, and that war is far too important to risk for the sake of ambition. "If this were only about me, I'd go on," Romney said. "But . . . because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside."

Romney's speech will be rated one of his best, with the accompanying lament that so often candidates show their best qualities only when conceding defeat. It was a good speech - certainly good enough to leave the impression among potential future supporters that Romney stands for the right things. But let's pause, while the memories are fresh, to reflect on why Romney was giving a concession speech in the first place.

However much running for president has changed, it remains a test of who can forge a connection with the most voters. Here in New Hampshire, where twice in three election cycles, John McCain won that test with Republicans and independents, we have the privilege of conducting a particularly thorough examination. We may not always be able to name what it is that moves us, but, to borrow a phrase, we know it when we see it.

The truth is there was no consensus among Republican primary voters here, just as there wasn't in most of the states that followed. McCain won 37 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. In a slightly smaller field, he won 42 percent in California.

On the other hand: Monitor readers may recall the map of the state we published after the primary, with all but the southeastern corner of the state shaded for McCain. In small towns and large towns, from Peterborough up to Pittsburg, the verdict was the same: More voters connected with McCain than with Romney.

That verdict was affirmed late Tuesday night in California, where again the statewide vote margin masked the truth. McCain wasn't the choice of many more voters than Romney was, but in community after community - 49 of 53 congressional districts, at last report - he was almost always the choice of at least some more. Yes, Romney could have slogged on, but he's no fool. A longer campaign would have brought only more close defeats.

A final word about such defeats and what they say about the significant support Romney lately received from Rush Limbaugh and others with less talent or audience. Talk radio did not lose the Republican primary. Nor did any one part of the conservative message that Romney sought to champion. Elections are won and lost by people, not by movements or ideas.

Romney appropriately, albeit tacitly, conceded yesterday that in pursuit of this year's Republican presidential nomination, the better candidate won. If he aspires to a different outcome next time, it's the performance of the messenger, far more than the message, that will need to improve.