Not sure what you mean by that, in context.
It's possible the non-voters do support Obama but not enough to go vote for him. It's also possible that Romney, being so similar to Obama, didn't offer a meaningful difference in policy to some people.
To the first, that Obama was singling out the people who cared enough to vote for thanks.
To the second, I'd argue the people that don't vote haven't the least interest in policy specifics. Romney could have maybe offered to give everyone a pony and an AK47, and that might have drew a few more people, but given that he lost 2m off McCain's mark, and Obama more than that off his mark, I'd wager the article's more correct in the feeling that people are looking for someone to "like" to vote into office. Obama '08 was that someone, and McCain too had his hero appeal. Romney wasn't ever going to be anyone's hero, and frankly you'd have to look really hard in the GOP to even find someone to fit that mold right now, not withstanding drafting Petraeus before his ignominous fall from grace. He spouted whatever policies he wanted to at whatever crowd would hear them, so I don't think he'd have motivated anyone more to turn out than he already did.
It'd be nice to think the only reason Romney didn't win was because he was a leaky vessel. But, party id statistics prove the GOP is a leaky vessel even before you add in Romney. Dems hold a distinct advantage on party id right now in the states that matter to the EC, and exit polls showed that many of self-identified Independents are ex-GOP members. That means those unskewed polls that showed Dems with a +7 to +9 party id are the reality on the ground right now. So sure, some people might have been turned off because Romney wasn't conservative enough, but the odds that those "some people" are enough to matter are negligible.