Does Romney even have a chance this time?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Let's face it, the only reason why Romney won the nod in 2012 was because he was against very weak "B-list" candidates, this time we're going to have much stronger candidates like Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, etc.

How many states/delegates do you think Romney would end up winning? And does he actually have a serious shot at the nod this go around?

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

Yes, he does, if he runs.

(I'll believe Romney is running when he announces a full candidacy, and not one second before.)

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Let's face it, the only reason why Romney won the nod in 2012 was because he was against very weak "B-list" candidates, this time we're going to have much stronger candidates like Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, etc.

How many states/delegates do you think Romney would end up winning? And does he actually have a serious shot at the nod this go around?

I'd still argue there are no "A-List" Republicans this cycle either. Just like there are no "A-List" Dems besides Hillary. So he definitely has a chance.

[Panda Express]

I wouldn't call Newt Gingrich, the guy who cheated on multiple wives and was literally forced out by the GOP and Rick Santorum, the guy who lost by 33 points and Herman Cain, a philandering pizza guy "B list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "C list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "D list candidates". MAYBE E list.

[Phony Moderate]

Of course - he has the $$$ men behind him.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Of course - he has the $$$ men behind him.

He'll have to fight Jeb for them this time.

[stegosaurus]

Romney would be the only candidate whose baggage is allready common knowledge, so that gives him a small advantage in a primary that is sure to be a bloodbath.

[bobloblaw]

No has little chance to win the nomination and ZERO chance to win the general election. And deservedly so.

[pikachu]

In the general? I'm not sure. In the primary? Definitely. He'll have money behind him, everyone already knows who is and all of his weaknesses (unlike say Christie or Bush), and he'd start off as the frontrunner in New Hampshire, which shouldn't be discounted in how much momentum he'd have in the primary.

[Mister Mets]

Sure. He has name recognition, the appropriate resume and solid connections.

And this isn't Kerry in 2008 where the other top-tier candidates have obvious advantages.

[Blair]

The 2012 field was weak at best, I mean the fact that Santorum came second shows how bad it was. The GOP tried to get other candidates like Bush and Christie because they didn't like Romney.

He ed up in 2012, I could understand if he ran a good campaign and got say 250 EV but he didn't. He was a generic old white rich guy

[Mister Mets]

Romney's main advantage remains the quality of his competition.

If conservatives had taken a look at Pawlenty, or if Rick Perry had been more articulate, they'd likely have beat Romney in '08.

Christie's damaged by bridgegate and concerns about New Jersey's economy, as well as a reputation for poor discipline. Jeb's out of practice, and invites anti-dynasty arguments. Rand Paul's dad is associated with a newsletter accusing the Charlie Hebdo attack of being a false flag. Ted Cruz has burned a lot of bridges. Huckabee's picking fights with Beyonce. Walker, Kasich, Pence and Jindal don't have the name recognition.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yes.

[pbrower2a]

Marco Rubio is strong?

If Marco Rubio is a strong Presidential candidate, then alligators are vegetarians.

[Suburbia]

Somewhat. Christie is facing Bridgegate problems, Rand Paul is too libertarian, Bush is seen as old news.

[SWE]

His chances are about the same as Fiorina's

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

Honestly I doubt it, and neither does Bush. They don't have much appeal to independents or the GOP base at this point. A Scott Walker nomination is far more likely I'd argue.

[Libertarian Socialist Dem]

In the general? I'm not sure. In the primary? Definitely. He'll have money behind him, everyone already knows who is and all of his weaknesses (unlike say Christie or Bush), and he'd start off as the frontrunner in New Hampshire, which shouldn't be discounted in how much momentum he'd have in the primary.

I think that Rand Paul would actually be the front runner in libertarian Penang New Hampshire if he could get enough independents on board plus retain his fathers share of the vote from 2012. The other thing in his favor would be Christie, Romney and Bush dividing the moderate vote.

[Mehmentum]

I think Romney has a better chance than Bush at this point.

[TDAS04]

Yes.

Unfortunately.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I wouldn't call Newt Gingrich, the guy who cheated on multiple wives and was literally forced out by the GOP and Rick Santorum, the guy who lost by 33 points and Herman Cain, a philandering pizza guy "B list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "C list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "D list candidates". MAYBE E list.

Yeah, a guy who served ONE term as governor of a deep blue state and lost to Ted Kennedy by double-digits in a great Republican year was a real A-lister. Why anyone thought Romney was a good candidate is beyond me...really, the only thing he had going for him was no skeletons in his closet and didn't make gaffes (except for the 47% remark, but that was pretty minor compared to the stuff the others have said). Seriously, the if the GOP had wanted a moderate, they should've at least gone with Huntsman, who wouldn't have lost his home state.

[Mister Mets]

I think Romney has a better chance than Bush at this point.

Bush's tenure as Republican frontrunner was very brief.

I do wonder how much of the backlash against Romney is the result of Bush's friends. It was interesting to see a discussion on a Sunday Morning show where the two Republicans were both jeb backers. Having a lot of connections helps getting a message out.

I wouldn't call Newt Gingrich, the guy who cheated on multiple wives and was literally forced out by the GOP and Rick Santorum, the guy who lost by 33 points and Herman Cain, a philandering pizza guy "B list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "C list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "D list candidates". MAYBE E list.

Yeah, a guy who served ONE term as governor of a deep blue state and lost to Ted Kennedy by double-digits in a great Republican year was a real A-lister. Why anyone thought Romney was a good candidate is beyond me...really, the only thing he had going for him was no skeletons in his closet and didn't make gaffes (except for the 47% remark, but that was pretty minor compared to the stuff the others have said). Seriously, the if the GOP had wanted a moderate, they should've at least gone with Huntsman, who wouldn't have lost his home state.

What does it matter how a candidate does in their home state?

Romney won the home states of Perry, Gingrich and Huntsman.

[Lincoln Republican]

As you may or may not know, I have been one of this forum's biggest Romney supporters in 2008 and again in 2012.

But if I were a Romney advisor, I would strongly urge him not to run in 2016.

2012, I believe, was winnable for him, given the circumstances at that time.  And I genuinely believe that, had he won, Romney would have made a very good, solid, capable President.

But his 2012 campaign was gaffe prone and handled very badly, by him, and by his team.

If Romney stands any chance at all in 2016, it is a very small chance indeed.  It would be based on an almost flawless campaign, and I do not see that happening.  

Final analysis, no, I do not see a scenario leading to a Romney victory in 2016, unfortunately for the nation as far as I'm concerned, but a Romney win in 2016 is simply not going to happen.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I think Romney has a better chance than Bush at this point.

Bush's tenure as Republican frontrunner was very brief.

I do wonder how much of the backlash against Romney is the result of Bush's friends. It was interesting to see a discussion on a Sunday Morning show where the two Republicans were both jeb backers. Having a lot of connections helps getting a message out.

I wouldn't call Newt Gingrich, the guy who cheated on multiple wives and was literally forced out by the GOP and Rick Santorum, the guy who lost by 33 points and Herman Cain, a philandering pizza guy "B list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "C list candidates". I wouldn't even call them "D list candidates". MAYBE E list.

Yeah, a guy who served ONE term as governor of a deep blue state and lost to Ted Kennedy by double-digits in a great Republican year was a real A-lister. Why anyone thought Romney was a good candidate is beyond me...really, the only thing he had going for him was no skeletons in his closet and didn't make gaffes (except for the 47% remark, but that was pretty minor compared to the stuff the others have said). Seriously, the if the GOP had wanted a moderate, they should've at least gone with Huntsman, who wouldn't have lost his home state.

What does it matter how a candidate does in their home state?

Romney won the home states of Perry, Gingrich and Huntsman.

Considering a Republican presidential nominee hadn't lost their home state since 1944 and even then it was only to someone else from that state, it was rather embarrassing that Romney not only lost his, but lost it by a huge margin. It's not the only thing I had against him (and yes, I did still vote for him in the general, albeit very reluctantly), but it's a good metaphor for his candidacy. I would've had a lot more respect for Romney if he at least had served a second term as governor of MA.

[OpinionatedGuy]

Obviously, at this far out, anything can happen.

However, Mitt Romney has shown in both of his campaigns that he has a pretty difficult time getting the support of Republicans who vote GOP for other than economic reasons (other than the Mormons). He was able to skate by in 2012 because Romney's competition was as lacking in crossover appeal as he Romney is. The closest one I think was Newt Gingrich weirdly enough.

However the current field not only has more quality candidates, it has people who can appeal to Mitt's 2012 "base", as well as people who can appeal to both social/fiscal conservatives.