A key difference between the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bain Capital non-veterans that everyone seems to keep missing: The SBVs had actually been in Vietnam with Kerry; they could give actual eyewitness accounts. The BC accusers are all people who were not at Bain Capital with Romney; they can't give eyewitness accounts and so are less credible.
What made the SBVs so credible is that they were there.
The difference is that Mitt Romney's behavior will appear, if at all, through dry financial records. Don't fool yourself; if there is any truth behind the attacks of Bain Capital it will come from disgruntled former employees who saw assets transferred. Employees can tell you if real estate was sold to book a profit that largely went to Bain Capital.
Conservatives are not the only ones who can do financial analysis. No, this is not Enron, so blatant that a bright high-school student could understand it, but there may be plenty of people who know where the skeletons are buried. Mitt Romney may have been even more a 'job destroyer' than a job-creator.
It could happen that way. But as I've been saying, with the economy and the rest in the terrible shape they are today, I don't think many voters will give a damn what Romney did or didn't do at Bain Capital 15 years ago. (Exception: If what he did at Bain turns out to be completely the opposite of what's been portrayed by him and his allies thus far. It can't be just one or two companies that may have been "vultured"; it would have to be a LOT of them.)
Poll
