Title says it all.
I think the answer is 100% absolutely YES he does.
The questions we cannot answer/can only speculate about would be what the national party looks like, how he is thought of for losing this election, what the economy looks like and who else runs for the nomination.
Probably not. It’s almost become a de facto tradition that losing candidates don’t run again. Hell, even Gore after winning the popular vote in 2000 didn’t run again.
He can try, but it will be Somebody Else’s Turn.
… you do realize that Romney ran in 2008, right?
I guess it depends on the circumstances of the loss. Gore probably could’ve run again in 2004 if he’d wanted to as he’d both won the popular vote in '00 and there wasn’t really any obvious candidate on the horizon in '04 to challenge him.
But that’s sort of an outlier. In most cases loosing a Presidential run after being nominated once is pretty damaging to a politician. I can’t imagine McCain, Kerry, Dole, Dukakis or Mondale even trying a second run. The combination of having had public opinion go against you once, plus being the target of internal party finger pointing after a loss is pretty deadly.
So I’d say no, unless he wins the popular vote in '12.
Context. Its pretty clear what jtgain means.
Kerry tried in 2008 and his campaign sank like a rock.
The days when candidates like Dewey or Stevenson or Nixon could come back for another try after losing a Presidential election are apparently over.
Why do you think this? I think it is totally 100% obvious that he does not. For the reasons given already, plus he will be 69 years old and has better things to do with his time.
In primaries. The tradition referred to was losing candidate in prez elections doesn’t run again.
Uh, I don’t think so. I can’t even find evidence that he set up an exploratory committee. He certainly did not announce that he was running again.
Do you have a cite? I remember him sort of playing with the idea in interviews, but I don’t think he ever announced his candidacy or had a campaign to sink in '08.
If Romney can’t win against a candidate facing as much irrational hatred as Obama is, how will he win against whatever eager, young, up and coming Democrat that follows him? Not to mention, the up and coming Republicans who will use the last two elections as red meat in the primaries.
I think the last losing nominee who ran again and became the nominee for a second time was Nixon.
There is a non-zero chance that the sun won’t rise tomorrow, but this is about as close to zero possibility as it gets.
This is his one shot at this.
Romney was the sacrificial lamb to run against the incumbent. The Republicans are saving Jeb for 2016.
That was really his choice though. I don’t think he would have had any problem winning the 2004 nomination had he run.
I do think a truly losing candidate can run again and win, but not if they lose a winnable race. Romney won’t have better odds in 2016 than he does in 2012.
I think we’re more likely to see Obama run again if he loses, although maybe not in 2016. Especially if like Bill Clinton, he’s self-aware about why he lost and can articulate to voters why he did poorly in his first term and why he would do better in a 2nd.
The Nixon example is a good one because he barely lost and it wasn’t because of substantial shortcomings as a candidate. Kennedy was just younger and more charismatic. When Nixon faced two candidates who weren’t so charismatic, he beat them.
And BTW, I think Al Gore can be the nominee in 2016. All he has to do is get in the race and I think he’d be the favorite.
This article is about him withdrawing from the race. Which pretty much shows that people considered him to be in it. As you can see it was January of 2007, a point at which campaigns were still in pretty embryonic stages - it was a year before the first primary. But Kerry was in the campaign as much as Obama or Clinton or Edwards were at that point.
Of course no one knows what would be in Romney’s heart at that point, but from a practical standpoint I’d say it very much matters how he loses. If he goes down swinging without making major gaffes or seriously pissing off the Republican base, but loses because the country just has more people who agree with Obama, then you can see a scenario where he spends the next four years trying to make the case for his ideas to the American people, then I could see him feasibly taking a shot again if it looks like public opinion has changed.
This is exactly what Reagan did. He lost the nomination in 1976, and spent the next four years ‘working the room’. He gave speeches, radio addresses, TV interviews, magazine interviews, etc. He grew in popularity, convinced a lot of swing voters to support him, and ran successfully in 1980.
If, on the other hand, Romney pulls a John McCain and implodes his own candidacy through sheer stupidity or poor political instincts, he’s done.
Do you think that Romney has run a “good” campaign so far?
One that’s good enough such that he just “lost to the better person” or do you think the campaign has not gone well for him?
Romney is a poor campaigner. And not the ideal candidate for Republicans. with guys like Christie, Ryan, Jindal, Rubio, and Jeb in the picture in 2016 I can’t see why Republicans would bother with Romney.
Err…Reagan didn’t win the nomination in 1976. Romney running again in 2016 wouldn’t be “exactly” the same.
Plus, if your looking for an example of someone that went from a primary loss to a nomination in later cycle, its a little silly to reach back to Reagan. That’s where most nominees come from, including Romney himself. Obviously no one is questioning if that’s possible.