Why "can"? Why not "should"?
"Should" is to my mind a much more interesting question than "can"…
Ask Dr. Popkin: Can the Romney Campaign Be Saved?: Sam Popkin: [T]the GOP Tea Party base is pushing for policies that cannot be defended nationally by a presidential candidate. The Romney campaign wanted the election to be a referendum on Obama's record on jobs. Once the Tea Party tail started wagging the elephant, Romney pandered himself into a corner. Each time the Romney campaign has seemed ready to acknowledge a more centrist idea, the far right yelled and Romney blinked.
As a result of the baggage Romney took on during the primaries, the Obama campaign has been able to frame the election as a choice between two futures, and campaign on a defense of stark contrasts on immigration, contraception, healthcare and tax policies….
Voters may accept Mitt Romney's competence, but knowing he is good at using power doesn't mean people will trust him with it. What in Romney's record or the current performance of the Republican Party will persuade swing voters that Romney should have their proxy in the coming fights over whom and what to tax and who should receive benefits?….
It looks like he put Paul Ryan and his budget on the ticket with no advance planning for how they would fill in the blanks and reassure voters. I have yet to hear anything resembling "we're all in this together" or "united we stand." Instead, his articulation has differed little from the leaked fund-raiser video, and sounds more like "we are the goose that lays your golden eggs."