Am I the only one who thinks Romney will stage a comeback in 2016?

[tmthforu94]

If you count his test run in 1968, Ronald Reagan didn't win the White House until his third try, though that was also his first time in a General Election.

I think Mitt Romney would be a frontrunner, and with the scandals that seem to be mounting on top Republicans, he might give it some consideration if polls continue to suggest he would win again. Romney no doubt wants the White House, but I doubt his heart is in it for another run. The fact he's run twice will no doubt hurt him with some voters, but seeing how the field is starting to shape out, he still may end up the best of them.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If Mitt is being seriously entertained by GOP voters... then Jebus... just gift the Dems the White House.

Which current GOP contender could outperform him?

[DrScholl]

Losing a primary and running again is one thing, losing a general is another. There is a reason that most presidential general losers don't run again and that is because running a presidential campaign is a very stressing, grueling task that isn't something that is easy to repeat. Presidents who win repeat it once, but that's from a different standpoint, which is re-election.

[Averroës Nix]

Well, it would certainly add something to all of those Thomas Dewey comparisons.

[SPC]

Unfortunately, the qualities of Romney that would make me tempted to vote for him are the same that likely cost him the election (namely, his touching the third rails on immigration and the welfare state.) If he focused on those and ending Obamacare and downplayed his Keynesianism, MIC support and Russo/Sinophobia I would support him, but of course he would be DOA as a candidate.

[IceSpear]

Romney 2016 will go about as far as Kerry 2008.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If Mitt is being seriously entertained by GOP voters... then Jebus... just gift the Dems the White House.

Which current GOP contender could outperform him?

That's my point, if Mitt is the best option you've got, you've already lost

[Yank2133]

Does Mitt really want to become the Buffalo Bills of presidential candidates?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is the summarizing last part of the story: "A candidate who did not believe he could beat the president in debate, who always felt second-best to his father, who believed the country was moving away from him, and who didn't even feel at home in his own party. The Romney campaign faced many uphill battles in the 2012 campaign. "Mitt" shows us that some of the most intense were in the candidate's mind."

That is the biggest problem for him, even within the GOP. The next nominee cannot afford to offend the Paulists. Unlike Romney though, whoever that is won't have to deal with Ron, but Rand and thus it could be easier to come to an accord of sorts with a Walker or a Kasich, then it was for Ron to do so with Mittens. Romney would certainly need to scrap all his plans military wise to stand a chance. And his numbers would have to add up this time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hot Air has a piece on it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/17/gop-establishment-panics-over-christies-troubles-i-think-we-need-mitt-back/

It's based on a comment in a buzzfeed piece.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/chris-christies-crisis-plunges-republican-party-deeper-into

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well that's an interesting development...

Most certainly because all throughout 2012 they grin and beared Mitt Romney who they really didn't like at all, longing for when they could have their champion Chris Christie. After the election we got all those articles abotu how Romney was riding off into the sunset and hopefully carrying with him all the things about the GOP they despised. How ironic a year plus later and their sentiments have shifted some.

[Potus]

He's not the new, sensational, flashy candidate that a lot of people want for 2016. But I also think new, sensational, and flashy backfires a lot of the time. Especially in the GOP. Mitt has a wealth of campaign experience, he gets torn up about the gaffes, Boston undoubtedly learned a few things from this campaign, and he's also got the documentary in his corner now. I think someone said it earlier in the thread, the contrast between Mitt and Hillary wouldn't be as profound as Mitt and the President.

In 2008, the campaign was a lesson. In 2012, nobody wanted him but they'd take him. In 2016, people will want him. In the 2012 race, he demonstrated remarkable executive foresight even when conventional wisdom said otherwise. And he was mocked for it.

On Obamacare, he predicted virtually the whole botched rollout and everyone just shot him a sideways look and said "flipping Mormon, that's not how the law works."

On foreign policy, where he caught the most grief, he said that Russia was still our number one geopolitical foe. Everyone scoffed at him and said he was living in the Cold War, where his economic policies belong. A bit into the President's second term, they're housing Edward Snowden and stealing vital US national security intelligence. They also muscle in to nearly singlehandedly prop up the Assad regime. Mitt was right.

I know all of the political conventional wisdom is arrayed squarely against him. But, as a Romney loyalist, I'd be more than ready to stand with him one last time.

[President von Cat]

He's not the new, sensational, flashy candidate that a lot of people want for 2016. But I also think new, sensational, and flashy backfires a lot of the time. Especially in the GOP. Mitt has a wealth of campaign experience, he gets torn up about the gaffes, Boston undoubtedly learned a few things from this campaign, and he's also got the documentary in his corner now. I think someone said it earlier in the thread, the contrast between Mitt and Hillary wouldn't be as profound as Mitt and the President.

In 2008, the campaign was a lesson. In 2012, nobody wanted him but they'd take him. In 2016, people will want him. In the 2012 race, he demonstrated remarkable executive foresight even when conventional wisdom said otherwise. And he was mocked for it.

On Obamacare, he predicted virtually the whole botched rollout and everyone just shot him a sideways look and said "flipping Mormon, that's not how the law works."

On foreign policy, where he caught the most grief, he said that Russia was still our number one geopolitical foe. Everyone scoffed at him and said he was living in the Cold War, where his economic policies belong. A bit into the President's second term, they're housing Edward Snowden and stealing vital US national security intelligence. They also muscle in to nearly singlehandedly prop up the Assad regime. Mitt was right.

I know all of the political conventional wisdom is arrayed squarely against him. But, as a Romney loyalist, I'd be more than ready to stand with him one last time.

Remarkable executive foresight, like tacking hard right on immigration just to get through a clown car primary?

Or failing to anticipate the attacks on his Bain record that were obviously coming?

Or failing to run a disciplined team that could stick to a message instead of chasing the daily news cycle controversies?

Or failing to come up with a credible contrast to Obamacare?

Or launching ORCA as a campaign turnout tool when it was basically untested?

Or failing to even consider a concession speech?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

If Romney runs again, Hispanics will vote 90% for Hillary.

[King]

They'll go Paul Ryan if they want to retread.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I think Romney would like to run in 2016, and I think he could possibly win, but he has been scapegoated for the GOP loss to Obama in such a way that the contributor class will send him the message that he'll have to self-finance if he wants to run for the nomination.

If there's still an economic malaise in 2016, Romney actually might be the most logical candidate for the GOP.  What he'll have to do in 2016 was what he SHOULD have done in 2012, which was run on who he really was.  Romney was never a "job creator", and he looked bad when he tried to sell that schtick.  But Romney WAS a manager and a WEALTH creator.  Romney was a guy who came into difficult situations, developed plans of actions, and compelled the companies he became involved with to live within their means.  And Romney was a successful Governor.  In addition, by 2016, Obamacare will be the status quo; folks will be using it, living with it, and going to the doctor on it.  Romney, all of a sudden, will be the most qualified candidate to address specific problems with Obamacare and propose conservative solutions.

The other thing Romney would have to do is deal with the issue of his income tax returns.  The public expected more disclosure than they received, and the way Romney handled this issue left the indelible impression that he, Romney, had something to hide.  If Romney wants to be President, he'll have to make a more complete disclosure than he wants to.  The public expects that. 

I think that it's likely that Romney will not run.  He's not likely to be drafted because a lot of people don't like him.  But the GOP doesn't have a great stable of candidates for 2016, and some of them may not show well in 2014 re-election bids.  Romney 2016 is unlikely, but not preposterous.

[Vosem]

I don't think it's likely, but it's possible. If numerous possibilities (Christie/Paul/Walker) have removed themselves through scandal and in 2015 Republicans are looking for additions to the field, I think Romney would be sorely tempted by a draft movement, especially if it's backed up with good primary polling (like what happened before Perry entered the race in 2011); and if it goes to a brokered convention, I think Romney could be an uncontroversial compromise candidate. But I don't Romney is entering unless it unless he can plausibly say he had too for the good of the party.

Really, the meme that losers don't run a second time is one that exists because of a confluence of specific reasons. Going back to 1980 -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bush, Dole, and McCain lost decisively (greater than 5% margin); Gore could have had the nomination sewn up if he'd still wanted to be President; and Kerry found himself outclassed by superior candidates in 2008 (Hillary/Obama). None of these apply to Romney if he doesn't want them to.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

I don't think it's likely, but it's possible. If numerous possibilities (Christie/Paul/Walker) have removed themselves through scandal and in 2015 Republicans are looking for additions to the field, I think Romney would be sorely tempted by a draft movement, especially if it's backed up with good primary polling (like what happened before Perry entered the race in 2011); and if it goes to a brokered convention, I think Romney could be an uncontroversial compromise candidate. But I don't Romney is entering unless it unless he can plausibly say he had too for the good of the party.

Really, the meme that losers don't run a second time is one that exists because of a confluence of specific reasons. Going back to 1980 -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bush, Dole, and McCain lost decisively (greater than 5% margin); Gore could have had the nomination sewn up if he'd still wanted to be President; and Kerry found himself outclassed by superior candidates in 2008 (Hillary/Obama). None of these apply to Romney if he doesn't want them to.

Romney could win.  It's unlikely he'd LOSE any states he lost in 2012, and he'd be President if he'd have won FL, OH, NH, CO, and one of the following:  IA, PA, NV, WI.  I can't see a single Romney state shifting to the Democrats in 2016, and that includes NC.  He didn't get particularly blown out of the water, and he lost to an incumbent President in a politicial environment where party loyalties had hardened significantly.

It's hard for me to think of a more effective candidate for the GOP that is actually up to the job of President.  No one in the crowd running now really has the chops to BE President.  Rand Paul is not going to be the nominee and Chris Christie is self-destructing before our eyes.  There's Jeb Bush, but why, really, is Jeb a better candidate than Romney?  (People still blame the Bush family for screwing up America.) 

Romney WASN'T the reason the GOP lost Senate seats, either.  Some of the Democrats that eked out wins (Tester, Nelson) were stronger candidates then was assumed.  In some cases, the Democrats came up with the strongest candidate possible (Kaine, Heitkamp).  Romney's not responsible for that, and he's not responsible for the silly primary voters in IN and MO picking Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin (although Mourdock was a far, far better candidate that the hapless Akin). 

Romney did lose because of his own unwillingness to call out the nutty GOP base here and there on their silliness.  He didn't need to pander so much as emphasize the issues he was running on in 2012, and he put his foot in his mouth more than once.  The premise of his campaign made him look inauthentic in the end.  But a lot of this is already ancient history.  The GOP A List is pretty lame.  Romney doesn't look that bad standing next to these guys.

[IceSpear]

I don't think it's likely, but it's possible. If numerous possibilities (Christie/Paul/Walker) have removed themselves through scandal and in 2015 Republicans are looking for additions to the field, I think Romney would be sorely tempted by a draft movement, especially if it's backed up with good primary polling (like what happened before Perry entered the race in 2011); and if it goes to a brokered convention, I think Romney could be an uncontroversial compromise candidate. But I don't Romney is entering unless it unless he can plausibly say he had too for the good of the party.

Really, the meme that losers don't run a second time is one that exists because of a confluence of specific reasons. Going back to 1980 -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Bush, Dole, and McCain lost decisively (greater than 5% margin); Gore could have had the nomination sewn up if he'd still wanted to be President; and Kerry found himself outclassed by superior candidates in 2008 (Hillary/Obama). None of these apply to Romney if he doesn't want them to.

Romney could win.  It's unlikely he'd LOSE any states he lost in 2012, and he'd be President if he'd have won FL, OH, NH, CO, and one of the following:  IA, PA, NV, WI.  I can't see a single Romney state shifting to the Democrats in 2016, and that includes NC.  He didn't get particularly blown out of the water, and he lost to an incumbent President in a politicial environment where party loyalties had hardened significantly.

Hillary has much better ratings now than Obama had in 2012. Of course, that could end up changing, but I don't see the reasoning behind "Romney will DEFINITELY do better than he did in 2012" since at the moment, Hillary is stronger than Obama was.

Not to mention demographic changes, which will make the electorate even more unfavorable for the GOP than it was in 2012. "Self deportation" won't go away.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If Romney runs again, Hispanics will vote 90% for Hillary.

No.

For all the talk of Romney's self-deportation comment, 27% is about average between the highs and lows for GOP performance amongst Hispanics and though hapless in his outreach, he did none the less have other areas of immigration policy where he wasn't as hostile like on legal immigration and even the Dream Act, which I seem to recall him supporting Rubios version of. One must not forget that he won FL Hispanics in the GOP primary over Newt Gingrich and by a greater margin then he won the state immediatley after putting the foot down on all amnesty of any kind, period against a candidate who supported one, as well as having made that comment (it was in the FL GOP debate that it happened).

So at the very least there is a tract of the Hispanic vote, largely wealthier and Cuban that was willing to look past that comment. The higher the Hispanic turnout, the lower the percentage of those who are less concerned about this will be. That is something to be considered about the 38% in 2010 was that you had higher then normal Republican leaning Cuban turnout, versus lower in all the other groups as well as Democratic Cubans.

However, on the flip side, Sean Trende said last summer that there may be a natural floor that is rising slowly amongst Hispanics for the GOP as they get wealthier. Romney is not Barry Goldwater on this. Tom Tancredo and Steve King would be and neither are going to be the GOP nominee.

[RogueBeaver]

Yes (sane)

[ericpolitico]

How do you think?....GOP miss Romney? any chance for his comeback?..

from National Journal
Romney in the lead with 25 percent support. Libertarian firebrand Rand Paul (who has strong infrastructure in New Hampshire) and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are behind with 18 percent and 17 percent support, respectively.

We might be experiencing Mittmentum 3.0. The Netflix documentary about his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns was recently released to the excitement of political insiders everywhere. GOP insiders want him to come back: "You know what a lot of them say to me?" an anonymous "operative" told BuzzFeed. "I think we need Mitt back."

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Despite not actually being a statesman, he will be the "elder statesman" in 2016. Out of the field, he is pretty objectively the only candidate who has the gravitas to be president other than long-shots like Condi Rice. And while Ann and his family might be against a third run now, let's not forget that she was the one who wanted Romney to pull the trigger in 2012. If the opportunity presents itself for Romney to run, why wouldn't he at least think it over?

[RogueBeaver]

Don't be ridiculous Hagrid. This Romney nostalgia is absurd. For a candidate who had to financially drown Rick fycking Santorum in order to secure the nomination.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You know there is no objective "right answer" on these hypotheses, right? Go back through my posts on Romney and 2016 and you'll find that I'm at least trying to substantiate my thinking. All you've done is throw around names and negative words for people who are speculating that Romney could enter the race if the other candidates leave something to be desired.

I mean, Jeeze. I don't think the odds are great that he'll run, but I don't think they're 0%, either. Even if you think they are, you don't have the power of infallible foresight.

As for 2012, any reasonable moderate would've had to deal with the socon beauty pageant. Whoever represents the moderate wing of the party in 2016 will have to do it again, too. You think your Wisconsin boys aren't going to have trouble with the likes of Jindal, Paul, Cruz, and Rubio? Think again. At least Romney has shown he's got presence and can weather the storm. What does Paul Ryan have? Oversized suits and "teacher's pet" syndrome.

America looks at Romney and thinks "this guy really could have been president." That is a huge advantage, especially if he learns from his mistakes. The power of this perception cannot be understated in a field of candidates that is shaping up to contain a bunch of shallow rubes. Particularly when this person will be facing someone as formidable and, frankly, iconic, as Hillary Clinton.

[IceSpear]

Despite not actually being a statesman, he will be the "elder statesman" in 2016. Out of the field, he is pretty objectively the only candidate who has the gravitas to be president other than long-shots like Condi Rice. And while Ann and his family might be against a third run now, let's not forget that she was the one who wanted Romney to pull the trigger in 2012. If the opportunity presents itself for Romney to run, why wouldn't he at least think it over?

Wow, you really like Romney. I think the woman in your sig would be a much better candidate though.