Politico: The Case for Mitt `16

[IceSpear]

I hope Politico got all the clicks they were hoping for. The phrase "damaged goods" doesn't even begin to describe Romney.

It describes every single Democratic candidate to an even greater degree. Fact is the next president will be a Republican, and Mitt is the best choice for the Republican party.

LOL

Let me guess, you also thought there would be a Romney landslide in 2012?

[tmthforu94]

*smug smirk* https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=185438.msg4013337#msg4013337

I am going to feel so vindicated come 2016.

I have been saying this since December 2012. Can't wait to be proven correct.

[Simfan34]

*smug smirk* https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=185438.msg4013337#msg4013337

I am going to feel so vindicated come 2016.

Aren't you banned?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

*smug smirk* https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=185438.msg4013337#msg4013337

I am going to feel so vindicated come 2016.

Weren't you that nitwit who believed Romney is going to carry Massachusetts?

[HAnnA MArin County]

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.

lmao.

Please enlighten us on how Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush are strong contenders. Maybe in the fantasy world/bubble of Faux Noise where people honestly thought Mittens was going to win in 2012 (despite every poll saying otherwise), the same people who are still probably looking at the numbers in Ohio. Lol

If the "most electable" Republican couldn't unseat the Kenyan Marxist socialist antichrist martian communist Nazi Barack Hussein Obama, there's no way Willard is going to defeat Hillary Clinton. #CaseClosed

[Dixie Reborn]

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.

lmao.

Please enlighten us on how Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush are strong contenders. Maybe in the fantasy world/bubble of Faux Noise where people honestly thought Mittens was going to win in 2012 (despite every poll saying otherwise), the same people who are still probably looking at the numbers in Ohio. Lol

If the "most electable" Republican couldn't unseat the Kenyan Marxist socialist antichrist martian communist Nazi Barack Hussein Obama, there's no way Willard is going to defeat Hillary Clinton. #CaseClosed

Don't forget that Hillary lost to the same "Kenyan Marxist socialist antichrist martian communist Nazi", and keep in mind that Hillary is such a good candidate that she needs to constantly be bloated up by feminists and the media in order to appear viable.

[Skill and Chance]

You know what, I could see this happening.  Some here are too partisan to admit it but, a businessman candidate would look a lot more attractive to the middle if there is another 4 years of 1-2% GDP growth (or anything worse).  Democrats had better hope hiring picks up for good by 2016.  They won't be given the benefit of the doubt forever. 

[IceSpear]

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.

lmao.

Please enlighten us on how Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush are strong contenders. Maybe in the fantasy world/bubble of Faux Noise where people honestly thought Mittens was going to win in 2012 (despite every poll saying otherwise), the same people who are still probably looking at the numbers in Ohio. Lol

If the "most electable" Republican couldn't unseat the Kenyan Marxist socialist antichrist martian communist Nazi Barack Hussein Obama, there's no way Willard is going to defeat Hillary Clinton. #CaseClosed

Don't forget that Hillary lost to the same "Kenyan Marxist socialist antichrist martian communist Nazi", and keep in mind that Hillary is such a good candidate that she needs to constantly be bloated up by feminists and the media in order to appear viable.

Well as we all know, it's much easier for a Kenyan Marxist socialist antichrist martian communist Nazi to win a Democratic primary as opposed to a general election.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You know what, I could see this happening.  Some here are too partisan to admit it but, a businessman candidate would look a lot more attractive to the middle if there is another 4 years of 1-2% GDP growth (or anything worse).  Democrats had better hope hiring picks up for good by 2016.  They won't be given the benefit of the doubt forever. 

I've said on other threads here that Mitt in 2016 is hardly out of the question.  One reason the Democrats get so much benefit of the doubt is that so many Republicans that are out front in public view are either bumblers (Boehner), sleazebags (McConnell), warmongers (Graham, McCain), or whack jobs (Cruz, Perry, McDaniel).  The GOP's leaders are inept paper tigers unable to bring the whack jobs to heel, and the whack jobs give the GOP the image of a fringe party.  It's why Hillary is ahead in the polls.  It's why the Democrats, at this writing, have a tiny lead in the Generic Congressional Ballot Poll.  The Republican Party itself has disintegrated to the point where it will be hard for them, even with everything they seem to have going their way, to elect a President in 2016.

Mitt Romney, hard as it may be for some people to believe, is one of the few candidates running that could transcend the Republican Party and it's civil war and offer a chance for victory.  Romney's loss in 2012 was due to reasons that are eminently correctable, IMO.  To-wit:

1.  Bain Capital:  What hurt Romney was not his role in Bain Capital, but the fact that he tried to run as a "job creator" when he was a "wealth creator".  This destroyed his narrative, but the "job creator" narrative only got in the way.  A better narrative would have been on put forth by the Chicago Tribune in their editorial endorsing Romney in the primary.  The editorial cited Romney's business and government experience and pointed out that his experience was that of a man who took over troubled companies, imposed limits, and forced people to live within their means.  This was not only a believable narrative; it was one that would resonate with those independent voters who would be open to considering Romney.  Had Romney not gotten bogged down in a false narrative, his true narrative would have been out there, and it would have been more credible than what came forth.

2.  The 47% Remarks:  As awful as they sounded, I wonder if they really cost Romney many votes.  There are a significant number of voters who ponder the question of "makers vs. takers" in our society, and Romney could have (and should have, from a political point of view) made this a key issue in his campaign.  A lot of folks are tired of freeloaders from SNAP recipients to TARP recipients.  Romney was/is a guy with real credibility on this issue.

3.  The "Thurston Howell" Image:  What hurt Romney was when he came off as a phony.  When he came off as being elitist, he was being himself.  In truth, that's why Romney's supporters picked him; he was a guy who was better then them, and that's what they wanted in a President.  Romney didn't need to play Southern and eat "cheesy grits" for breakfast, and he didn't need to pander.  People are OK with elitists if they believe that the elitst knows what he's taking about.

4.  Failure to sufficiently discuss his experiences as Governor:  Romney avoided discussion of his record as Governor of Massachusetts because he didn't want to brag on Romneycare while trashing Obamacare.  This was an egregious error because voter expect a Presidential candidate to have sufficient political and governmental experience no matter how much they claim to want an outsider.  His record in Massachusetts is an asset.  Acting as if he were never Governor was a mistake.

In truth, the GOP didn't have a stronger candidate than Mitt Romney in 2012 and it really doesn't have a stronger candidate right now.

[Indy Texas]

2.  The 47% Remarks:  As awful as they sounded, I wonder if they really cost Romney many votes.  There are a significant number of voters who ponder the question of "makers vs. takers" in our society, and Romney could have (and should have, from a political point of view) made this a key issue in his campaign.  A lot of folks are tired of freeloaders from SNAP recipients to TARP recipients.  Romney was/is a guy with real credibility on this issue.

Mitt Romney supported TARP. Please stop pretending that those sort of voters really care about TARP. They're only bothered by "welfare" when it goes to the poor or the black or the brown.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Indy Texas, I see a problem in your signature.  Ronald Reagan did not win the GOP nomination and lose the general election in 1976, that's a pretty big difference.

[dmmidmi]

1.  Bain Capital:  What hurt Romney was not his role in Bain Capital, but the fact that he tried to run as a "job creator" when he was a "wealth creator".  This destroyed his narrative, but the "job creator" narrative only got in the way.  A better narrative would have been on put forth by the Chicago Tribune in their editorial endorsing Romney in the primary.  The editorial cited Romney's business and government experience and pointed out that his experience was that of a man who took over troubled companies, imposed limits, and forced people to live within their means.  This was not only a believable narrative; it was one that would resonate with those independent voters who would be open to considering Romney.  Had Romney not gotten bogged down in a false narrative, his true narrative would have been out there, and it would have been more credible than what came forth.

Forcing "people to live within their means" sounds a little hollow coming from a billionaire.

2.  The 47% Remarks:  As awful as they sounded, I wonder if they really cost Romney many votes.  There are a significant number of voters who ponder the question of "makers vs. takers" in our society, and Romney could have (and should have, from a political point of view) made this a key issue in his campaign.  A lot of folks are tired of freeloaders from SNAP recipients to TARP recipients.  Romney was/is a guy with real credibility on this issue.

You are probably right about the first part. But attacking the social safety net is a well that ran dry after unemployment hit 10% a few years back.

3.  The "Thurston Howell" Image:  What hurt Romney was when he came off as a phony.  When he came off as being elitist, he was being himself.  In truth, that's why Romney's supporters picked him; he was a guy who was better then them, and that's what they wanted in a President.  Romney didn't need to play Southern and eat "cheesy grits" for breakfast, and he didn't need to pander.  People are OK with elitists if they believe that the elitst knows what he's taking about.

You're probably right about this--it would have been an asset if he had at least one human quality, but extraordinary people have been elected president before.

4.  Failure to sufficiently discuss his experiences as Governor:  Romney avoided discussion of his record as Governor of Massachusetts because he didn't want to brag on Romneycare while trashing Obamacare.  This was an egregious error because voter expect a Presidential candidate to have sufficient political and governmental experience no matter how much they claim to want an outsider.  His record in Massachusetts is an asset.  Acting as if he were never Governor was a mistake.

If Republicans looked at his record as Governor, and if undecided voters saw his approval ratings upon leaving office, both groups would probably find stuff they don't like.