Does Romney even have a chance this time?

[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.

[Lincoln Republican]

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.

Just an observation:

I realize Nixon's birth state, home state, is California, however, in 1963, the Nixon family relocated to New York City, where Nixon became a senior partner in the leading law firm Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.

So Nixon's home state for the 1968 election would be New York, which he lost to Hubert Humphrey in the election.

I realize Romney lost his "home" state of Massachusetts in 2012, but one could hardly expect a Republican to have won one of the most liberal and one of the most Democratic states in the nation in a Presidential election under the circumstances of the 2012 election.