Politico: The Case for Mitt `16

[tmthforu94]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-case-for-mitt-romney-in-2016-108532.html#.U7VwipRdW_g

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A good read, and something I have been saying over and over again since November 2012. I think it is going to be tough on the family, but if the field clears for him to run again, which it is looking like it is doing, it's going to be a tough opportunity for him to pass up. The only smart thing to do at this point is solidly decline over and over again- you don't want to look desperate, rather make it look like you were drafted because there was no better alternative.

Summary: Everything is falling into place for another Romney bid.

[Never]

If it appears that Romney was drafted into 2016's presidential election, that probably would be beneficial to him. Still, he is such a known entity that most Americans have probably defined him already. Romney could be a winning option, but it would surely be a close victory for him, and at this point it seems unlikely that he could defeat Hillary. In other words, he would only have an advantage in the general election if she isn't the Democratic nominee.

On a side note, this talk of Romney reminds me of how there was limited chatter about Al Gore running for president in 2008, before it became completely clear that Hillary and Obama were going to be the top-tier candidates for the Democrats. The difference between Gore and Romney is that the GOP apparently lacks a potential candidate who stands above all others. That could very well give Romney an opening.

[bedstuy]

If the heir apparent for the moderate wing is Jeb Bush, Republicans are in deep, deep trouble.  At this point, can we say that Romney would be worse as a general election candidate than Bush?  I think losing in 2008 and 2012 is waaaay less baggage than being another Bush.  And, Romney proved himself a competent candidate, even if he completely lacked a real vision or positive message.

The question is: Does Mitt want to face the primary process?  Mitt Romney was crushed in 2008 by a shoe-string Huckabee campaign and a John McCain campaign that had been pronounced dead.  He only won in 2012 because no other plausible candidate showed up to the primary.  He ran against Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, remember?  Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are conservative crazy 2.0, they're Iphones; Santorum and Newt were StarTACs. 

[Paul Kemp]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-case-for-mitt-romney-in-2016-108532.html#.U7VwipRdW_g

You must be logged in to read this quote.

45% isn't going to win.

[Maistre]

[Lief 🗽]

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to watch mittens lose a third time!

[Maxwell]

Romney 2016 is the worst possible thing because 1. Republicans lose anyway and 2. Republicans don't learn anything from their mistakes, other than don't nominate Romney AGAIN, and hell, they may not learn that.

[SPC]

Romney 2016 is the worst possible thing because 1. Republicans lose anyway and 2. Republicans don't learn anything from their mistakes, other than don't nominate Romney AGAIN, and hell, they may not learn that.

1 and 2 are also true if the Republicans nominate Bush or William Howard Taft¹ again. 2 wouldn't be an issue if Romney had learned anything from his mistakes, which doesn't appear likely.

¹ Nixon would also work here.

[Joe Biden 2020]

The Republicans have a stronger field this cycle, a lot better than the jokers that played 2012.  That, along, with Hillary Clinton repeatedly shooting herself in the foot with her gaffes, might eliminate the need for Romney to run again.  Romney wouldn't be able to do much because he's a has-been.  Jeb Bush has a stronger chance, because the name of Bush is not near as toxic as it was in 2008.  Plus, Jeb is unlike his elder brother.  After what a lot of Americans view as the worst presidency since World War II under Obama, the name Bush may actually sound pretty appealing and even comforting.  There's no need for Romney to run.  The GOP can do quite well without him.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Romney cannot beat Hillary. If Hillary doesn't run, any GOP candidate sans Cruz would win.

[Likely Voter]

They whole "My Not Mitt?" thing is just a symptom of the current state of the GOP race with all the potential saviors either flaming out, bad fit or maybe not even interested. However, that just means the race is open for anyone to rise to the top, including some potential dark horses like Pence or Kasich. Once the midterms are over and the dust settles things will be clearer and there will be little or no talk of Mitt 2016.

[Lief 🗽]

...with Hillary Clinton repeatedly shooting herself in the foot with her gaffes... After what a lot of Americans view as the worst presidency since World War II under Obama, the name Bush may actually sound pretty appealing and even comforting. 

lol

[Supersonic]

I actually wouldn't mind Mitt 2016..

[Non Swing Voter]

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to watch mittens lose a third time!

Seconded.  Seeing him and his smug kids lose yet again would be great.  Though watching the Bush family deal with a loss would be equally amazing.

[IceSpear]

Romney got 47% of the vote, so I fail to see how it's a moral victory that 45% think we'd be better off if he was president...

[Mister Mets]

One reason it's tough to make a rule like "No losing nominee has a chance at being his party's next candidate" is that there is a relatively small sample set.

Looking at losers of presidential elections; Papa Bush, Ford and Carter were incumbent Presidents who lost.

Dole and McCain were in their early 70s when nominated.

Mondale, Mcgovern and Dukakis suffered more embarrassing losses.

That leaves Humphrey, Kerry and Gore. Gore didn't want to run. Kerry realized that the party was more interested in nominating a first (be it first woman or first African-American) than a war hero who lost to Bush. Humphrey relatively close in 1972, losing to a candidate who ran a savvy campaign and had stronger appeal to the base.

Romney has a few lucky breaks. The field is fractured. One establishment frontrunner is under investigation. Another is George W Bush's little brother. He would have the advantage of name recognition, in addition to dedicated support in the business community and among Mormons. Plus, he would have an existing campaign infrastructure.

I don't think he'll run, but he would be a strong contender for the nomination. The reasons that Gerald Ford, Walter Mondale and Bob Dole didn't run for president again don't apply to him.

[tmthforu94]

Despite what everyone thought, Mitt running in 2012 wasn't a sure thing. I think it's going to be tough to talk the family into giving it another go.

That being said, the 2016 field is looking worse by the day, and if an opportunity presents itself where Romney is essentially handed the nomination, I think it will be hard for him to say no. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw him enter in Fall 2015 if the field is looking especially weak.

I think Mitt still wants to be President. Granted, I think the main reason he's been especially active recently is his love for our country and wanting to make America better, but a small reason might also be that he wants to put himself in a strong position for 2016 if he decides to make it another go.

I originally suggested Mitt should run again over a year ago and was laughed at. Still doubtful, but it is looking a lot more realistic.

[Napoleon]

I want to know what happens if Mitt runs and Hillary doesn't.  That would be an interesting turn of events and would make more sense than running someone like Jeb Bush.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think the argument that Romney has 'dealt' with the negative impacts and somehow that negates its impact is WRONG. Romney would have to perform some kind of massive mea culpa, something he proved incapable of doing. He would also have to deal with a GOP that is actually more extreme and feral than it was in 2012. Plus, there's not even the 'moral' imperative there might have been from Gore in 04 or even 08. He lost and lost by more than circumstances suggest he should have.

It would be a suicide move... but please, go ahead. I can imagine the media "they couldn't find someone half-way decent to run, so they go to Mr Yesterday". Those in the GOP are better off waking up to themselves, standing up to the nutcases and getting someone unsullied.

[m4567]

The Republicans have a stronger field this cycle, a lot better than the jokers that played 2012.  That, along, with Hillary Clinton repeatedly shooting herself in the foot with her gaffes, might eliminate the need for Romney to run again.  Romney wouldn't be able to do much because he's a has-been.  Jeb Bush has a stronger chance, because the name of Bush is not near as toxic as it was in 2008.  Plus, Jeb is unlike his elder brother.  After what a lot of Americans view as the worst presidency since World War II under Obama, the name Bush may actually sound pretty appealing and even comforting.  There's no need for Romney to run.  The GOP can do quite well without him.

That Quinnipiac poll is borderline nonsense.

[Oakvale]

This is amazing. I know it's Politico (i.e. trash) but the fact that an iredeemable loser like Mitt Romney is being mentioned in any context as a potential Presidential candidate is truly the most absurd satire the human mind can imagine.

[Del Tachi]

I don't think he'll run, but there's no reason to think that a Romney 2016 campaign wouldn't be competitive. 

[Free Bird]

[IceSpear]

In all seriousness, "Mitt '16" sounds a lot like "Kerry '08". I seem to recall the media taking the latter very seriously as well, and consistently claiming that Kerry was "doing what he needs to do" in order to run again in 2008.

[Mister Mets]

In all seriousness, "Mitt '16" sounds a lot like "Kerry '08". I seem to recall the media taking the latter very seriously as well, and consistently claiming that Kerry was "doing what he needs to do" in order to run again in 2008.

Republicans hate Obama as much as Democrats hated Bush eight years ago, and there will be a section of the party that blames Romney for Obama's reelection, although Republicans do seem to have more respect for Obama's political talent than Democrats had for Bush.

Kerry's biggest problem was the 2008 primary field. He would have been the third choice, at best, in a field that included a young African American Senator and a female Senator with 100% name recognition and a popular husband. It ended up being a long hard-fought primary, although that was between figures Democrats generally liked with similar policy positions.

The 2016 Republican primary is likely to be more divided, which leaves more openings.