Will Romney run again?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Putting this poll up again given recent events. I still say no.

[Del Tachi]

No.  Establishment support will coalesce behind Bush and there won't be any room for someone like Mitt Romney in the 2016 GOP field.

[Vega]

Yes, and, going out on a limb here, but he'll win the nomination.

[Phony Moderate]

2016 will be to Romney what 1968 was to Nixon, sadly.

[Angel of Death]

At the very least, he's going to test the waters à la Truman '52 and Johnson '68.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

As I've always said, No.

[The Other Castro]

2016 will be to Romney what 1968 1908 was to Nixon William Jennings Bryan, sadly happily.

[Maxwell]

2016 will be to Romney what 1968 was to Nixon, sadly.

Romney isn't smart enough to be Nixon. I'm not saying Romney is a dumb, but Nixon is literally a mad scientist who became President.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Not unless he feels like wasting his time. The people who might have supported him are already rallying around Bush, and running would just split the establishment vote.

Romney isn't smart enough to be Nixon. I'm not saying Romney is a dumb, but Nixon is literally a mad scientist who became President.

Also, this.

[Suburbia]

I think so. He wants to, he's been speaking with confidants like Tim Pawlenty, Meg Whitman, etc. about joining the campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-moves-to-reassemble-campaign-apparatus-for-2016/2015/01/12/d968592e-9a88-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html

[Mr. Morden]

2016 will be to Romney what 1968 was to Nixon, sadly.

Romney isn't smart enough to be Nixon. I'm not saying Romney is a dumb, but Nixon is literally a mad scientist who became President.

Literally a mad scientist?

[bobloblaw]

Yes, and, going out on a limb here, but he'll win the nomination.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Selfishness is a human condition. Millions have died at the hands of those who tried to outlaw selfishness on the part of the individual.

[Lincoln Republican]

No, he will not run.

[Flake]

"REAGAN RAN THREE TIMES AND WON THE THIRD TIME! SINCE IT'S THE SAME FOR REAGAN WHEN ROMNEY RUNS IN 2016 HE WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!11"

[bobloblaw]

"REAGAN RAN THREE TIMES AND WON THE THIRD TIME! SINCE IT'S THE SAME FOR REAGAN WHEN ROMNEY RUNS IN 2016 HE WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!11"

Reagan didnt seriously run in 1968

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

"REAGAN RAN THREE TIMES AND WON THE THIRD TIME! SINCE IT'S THE SAME FOR REAGAN WHEN ROMNEY RUNS IN 2016 HE WILL WIN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!11"

Reagan didnt seriously run in 1968

What a coincidence! Romney never ran seriously! Losing to no-names in Iowa and failing as Favorite Son in NH '08. It's all part of the plan to be Reagan.

[Devils30]

More likely to be William Jennings Bryan and Thomas Dewey than Nixon.

[SteveRogers]

As preposterous as it would have sounded a year ago, I think he will run again. These things tend to become a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Once everyone started speculating about a Romney run, Mitt was forced to take a serious look at the situation. And once you announce that you're looking into it, suddenly you find yourself surrounded by advisers and donors who will assure you that there's a niche for you to fill in the primary. That makes it easy to ignore all evidence to the contrary.

[pbrower2a]

It's his character. He can no more avoid the limelight than a wolf can leave sheep alone. He is as flagrant a narcissist as I have seen go so high in American politics, and he has yet to figure why he lost. God and the Angel Moroni appointed him to be President now, but something must have gone wrong.Such won't happen again.

Except that he is much older he sees himself much as Dewey was going into 1948 -- still destined to be President. 

[Brittain33]

Is he pulling himself in because "if Jeb Bush can do it..."?

[Averroës Nix]

This is all moving very fast, but other than the highly positive reaction that we've seen from some Republicans on the Atlas forum we don't really know how most party actors feel about Romney running again. Polling on the Republican side isn't telling us much about anything other than name recognition at this point.

The single most interesting implication of Romney's interest is that a large share of the party's donor class is not satisfied with Bush.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Romney is the most underestimated Republican possibility.

[The_Doctor]

I do not understand this at all.

[LeBron]

Of course. I knew this would happen. It's Romney's nature to flip-flop on every single thing he can if it means power and greed for himself.

He flip-flopped on every issue known to man back in 2012 - gun control, healthcare, his past pro-choice stance, the stimulus, the auto-bailout, DADT, TARP, a flip-flop on whether to withdrawal the troops or not, a flat tax plan for his wealthy friends (and himself), and so much more just so he could have these billionaires and Tea Party SuperPACs coming in blasting the airwaves with ads for him.

And now he's back to doing it again. He told GOP donors "I want to be president" - what he actually feels, instead of all that lying he's done in front of the media over the past year.

His own freaking campaign is already pretending like he's some sort of compassionate conservative. He wants everyone to think he cares about the less fortunate and will make poverty his key issue, but he used to say things like "I'm not concerned about the very poor", loves firing people and ruining people's lives, and then goes off and says that nearly 1 in every 2 Americans is helpless and doesn't want to work.

I'm not buying it, and I hope he gets defeated in the primary. And if he does make it out, he'll be trounced by Hillary in the general. America isn't electing some out-of-touch billionaire in 2016.