What political candidates say during their campaign and when they say it are critical to their success. In three experiments, we show that abstract, "why"-laden appeals are more persuasive than concrete, "how"-laden appeals when voters' decision is temporally distant; the reverse is true when the decision is imminent, and these results are strongest among those who are politically uninformed. These effects seem to be driven by a match between temporal distance and the abstractness of the message that leads to perceptions of fluency, and the ensuing "feels right" experience yields enhanced evaluations of the focal stimulus.