Romney to be the Anti-Trump?

[Abraham Reagan]

Can someone tell me why Romney would be a stronger candidate than...

Bush?

Rubio?

Walker?

Christie?

Kasich?

I'm waiting with solid rebuttals.

I'm not going to address each candidate individually but will give you the reasons I think Mitt would make a great candidate.

He's battle tested, which means that he's prepared for all of the attacks Democrats will throw at him - considering they pretty much dug up everything they could find in 2012 and he'll learn from his mistakes last time.

 He's a skilled debater - we all remember that 1st presidential debate, and even in the debates that were deemed ties, Romney was still proven right in the long run, which leads to my next point.

For a former governor, he's surprisingly well versed in foreign policy. He was right about Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Mali and Syria, even though he was mocked by Obama.

He has bipartisan experience - You've gotta get along with Democrats when they're 85% of your legislature.

He has a record of turning things around- ex. SLC Olympics and MA budget

Lastly, He's a uniter, not a divider. Could you imagine him saying something along the lines of what Obama said about Republicans having common cause with America hating Iranians? I know I couldn't picture it.

Personal reason- This is a good man of faith and integrity and he didn't deserve to be raked over the coals like he was in 2012. I think he should get a chance to turn the country around.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romney's presence as second place finisher and his eventual nomination as a result of it in 2012, is entirely do his challenging the COC orthodoxy on immigration and even on trade (criticizing trade agreements in 2007, bashing Chinese Currency manipulation in 2011), and thereby winning the support the support of a middle class niche both conservative and moderate overal, but concerned about these issues as the economy began to decline and then in 2011 was sputtering along with a weak recovery.

If Romney takes Trump down, it will be by removing his strength, that is his ability to win over those voters on that issue. If he doesn't, if he tries to turn himself into an open borders candidate to appease the big donors in some failed hope of unifying the anti-Trump vote, he will likely fail as that was the one area where Romney could say, "I am better for you then anybody else", even many of his conservative challengers.

[Abraham Reagan]

He's battle tested, which means that he's prepared for all of the attacks Democrats will throw at him - considering they pretty much dug up everything they could find in 2012 and he'll learn from his mistakes last time.

And he's lost the battle twice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mittens thinks the Iraqi people were living in peace and enjoying their Bush-given democratic freedoms until Obama came along and started apologizing for America.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe instead of binders full of women, we'd have Korans full of ayatollahs or something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He lied repeatedly, brazenly and habitually through every stage of the campaign.

1. Call it a cliche but so did Reagan.

2. He knew that since we were already committed in Iraq, if we abruptly left without sufficient stability on the ground, radical Islamists would begin to take over the region and now we have ISIS.

3. I still don't get why "binders full of women" was such a bad thing. It was meant as a way to show that there were MANY qualified women for the job they were seeking to fill.

4. Just saying he lied doesn't cut it and it certainly doesn't lessen his character. I've said this before, but this is a guy who had a total of 28 years of unpaid public service, he's done amazing things for people around him, and he has been steadfast in his commitment to his faith, even with the slew of anti-mormon bigotry thrown around during the campaign.

[Blair]

Pick the guy who lost twice in a row to beat the first Republican candidate that people are really enthusiastic for in years?

Lol you see why Republicans are such a joke.

I get what you're saying and I'm not coming at this from some elitist "stupid racist Trump supporters" kind of standpoint. I just don't think Trump can win, and given someone like Mitt Romney who has been proven right on many issues he was lambasted for in 2012, I think the third time could really be the charm.

Didn't Romney boost to get unemployment down to 6% by 2016 whilst Obama has got it to what 4% already

He's battle tested, which means that he's prepared for all of the attacks Democrats will throw at him - considering they pretty much dug up everything they could find in 2012 and he'll learn from his mistakes last time.

 He's a skilled debater - we all remember that 1st presidential debate, and even in the debates that were deemed ties, Romney was still proven right in the long run, which leads to my next point.

For a former governor, he's surprisingly well versed in foreign policy. He was right about Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Mali and Syria, even though he was mocked by Obama.

He has bipartisan experience - You've gotta get along with Democrats when they're 85% of your legislature.

He has a record of turning things around- ex. SLC Olympics and MA budget

Lastly, He's a uniter, not a divider. Could you imagine him saying something along the lines of what Obama said about Republicans having common cause with America hating Iranians? I know I couldn't picture it.

Personal reason- This is a good man of faith and integrity and he didn't deserve to be raked over the coals like he was in 2012. I think he should get a chance to turn the country around.

1. Eh by that reasons John Kerry, John Mccain and Al Gore should all run in 2016. Running a campaign means yes you have experience but Romney's campaign was a disaster by any stretch. Remember when the GOP kept trying to get Bush, Ryan, Daniels, Christie etc to run in March because Romney was struggling against Santorum. If it wasn't for his PAC destroying Gingrich in Florida then it could have been worse. Whether it was his 47% comment, his robotic nature, let Detroit go bankrupt, his offshore tax records, binders full of women, Benghazi

It's like saying General Custer was battle tested-he was but he sucked at it.

2. What about the Benghazi comments? IIRC most of his gaffes came from the Republican primary, and even if he is judged as good debater that doesn't make a difference when your on stage with someone like Trump-I've heard for months how Christie, Bush and Jindal were great debaters but it doesn't make a difference. The same goes for the GE-Kerry was seen to have won the 2004 debates but that didn't matter.

3. Partly, as the saying goes a clock is right twice a day. The Obama position on Iran was much more acceptable than Romney, and look at Romney's handling of the Benghazi event in the campaign-he completely attacked Obama for something he didn't even do. Again Foreign policy shouldn't be as simple as saying 'Russia is bad, we need troops in Iraq' because it's not always that simple. Iraq had an extremely ineffective PM who didn't build up a coalition, and as we've seen in 2004 and 2006 even with US troops on the ground we still have violence.

4. I doubt that's going to mean that Schumer, Reid and co are going to work with him in 2016, hyperparistianship and all.

5. He also had a record of outsourcing jobs, using offshore tax havens and of losing due to this record (See 1994)

6. 47%, yeah that's a uniting comment

7. So was Ed Miliband, John Kerry, John Mccain, Al Gore, George W.Bush, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and the other long list of political losers 

[mvd10]

President Romney? Yes.
GOP Nominee Romney? Hell no.

[pikachu]

Romney entering would be entertaining, but we remember how terrible his campaign in the 2012 primaries was, right? The only reason he won was because all the establishment cash was behind him (which it won't be this time), and even then, he was losing to Perry, Cain, and Gingrich at various times, and struggled to put away Rick Santorum.

[Leinad]

No to Romney. He failed in 2012, I see little reason why anything different would happen in 2016.

Pick the guy who lost twice in a row to beat the first Republican candidate that people are really enthusiastic for in years?

Ever heard of Ron Paul?

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Romney hasn't won an election since 2002. That says it all. It looks pretty pitiful for the GOP to look to him as savior when they have candidates who have much more recent electoral success (in states that are actually somewhat winnable in the general election). 

True, Jeb hasn't won an election since then either, but he at least got reelected as governor and left office fairly popular.

[Jacobtm]

Pick the guy who lost twice in a row to beat the first Republican candidate that people are really enthusiastic for in years?

Lol you see why Republicans are such a joke.

I get what you're saying and I'm not coming at this from some elitist "stupid racist Trump supporters" kind of standpoint. I just don't think Trump can win, and given someone like Mitt Romney who has been proven right on many issues he was lambasted for in 2012, I think the third time could really be the charm.

Romney is seen as weak, a panderer, a lying politician who will change everything he believes to be elected.

Wouldn't last a minute in the same room with Trump.

Get on board the Trump train, he is winning, there is no one who can mess with him.

[Beezer]

Bust out the magic underpants, Mitt's coming to save America!