Why nominate a known election loser? Yeah I know about Nixon, Cleveland, but still those cases were the exception. So no Romney is not good, plus he’ll be 70 when he enters office. Same problem with Hillary, no guarantee she can make it past primaries or win an election. Both are demonstrative losers, Hillary in primaries and Romney in an election.
Depends on the circumstances of the loss. In a society where we are obsessed with what’s “hot” and everything and everyone else is a “has been”, we’re less likely to renominate losers than in the past, when it was normal practice. You renominate a Nixon, or a Stevenson, because you believe they are still the strongest candidate available. Same goes for Romney.
If the GOP 2016 field looks fairly strong, then no need for Mitt Romney. But if it looks really weak, with Bachmanns and Santorums galore, then Romney’s about the only viable option.
Romney! Pale, tired and unready! Now, Universe, I know I haven’t been a very good pantheist…
Maybe demonstrable; hardly demonstrative.
And there’s your campaign slogan.
“Misogyny for a thousand, Alex”.
If Romney did run again, it would be interesting to see what he did with the issue of releasing his tax returns. Would he release only two years’ worth again, would he release all the way back to the last election (since he’s obviously known since then that it’s expected of candidates), and did he file an amendment to his previous return as so many speculated about the last election?
Of course, even if his returns were squeaky clean and overly generous, I don’t think it would put the matter completely to rest. I think some would accuse him of planning a 2016 candidacy all along, and preparing his taxes for these last four years with the deliberate aim of making them look good to the public.
True - Harry Reid and the other liberal scumbags will just lie again.
Regards,
Shodan
Enough with the Romney speculation. And while we’re at it, can the tired Clinton inevitability stuff.
I want to see a Fauxcahontas-Ted Cruz death match. The ratings will be unbelievable.
Ugh. Can we please, please, please have some new blood? I don’t want to know the names of the 2016 candidates in 2014. Let’s see some fresh faces around here. Enough with the Bushes and Clintons and Romneys and Bidens. Just . . . something new.
As for Romney, if he managed to get the Republican nomination - and I doubt it, as he’s almost certainly not going to run - it would be a new low. He lost. It wasn’t because Obama was some kind of genius campaigner. Obama was actually fairly vulnerable in 2012 - the Democrats just got lucky that he was pitted against an incompetent robot.
ETA: Oh, and I fully agree with Jackmannii’s Warren-Cruz fight to the death. Now that would be fun. Maybe not the best for the country, but at this point American politics is so messed up, all you can hope for is an interesting ride.
You keep telling us it’s the former. Are you hedging now?
It says all that’s needed about the field that Romney is even being discussed as an option.
Poison the well much?
Well, Romney flatly, clearly, unequivocally state’s he’s not running for president in 2016, so the question remains open.
And his wife is not quite so emphatic: http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/politics/ann-romney-new-day-still-done/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
About the only belief (besides his faith) that Mitt Romney holds fast to is the belief that he should be president. At some point he’s going to look at the clowns coming out of the GOP car and decide he just can’t let one of them get the nomination. Given his name recognition, he can wait it out and see if one of the un-Romneys shows any potential. But he’ll be warming up in the bullpen just in case.
If by “poison the well” you mean “accurately predict what Reid and his like will do based on what he and they did in the past” then yes.
Here’s hoping Romney changes his mind and runs again. He was better qualified than Obama last time, and will be better qualified than any likely candidate in 2016.
[QUOTE=adaher]
But if it looks really weak, with Bachmanns and Santorums galore, then Romney’s about the only viable option.
[/QUOTE]
Probably a good strategy for him. Wait for the other candidates to fall apart, and then step in.
I am hoping the frenzied anti-Romney hysteria by the Usual Suspects is a recognition that he could win this time, and not just leftover bile from 2012.
Regards,
Shodan
I do too. He’s a bad campaigner. Poor on the stump. Very limited in his appeal. It would be pretty easy to defeat him again for the Democrats.
Romney said if he got in, the unemployment rate would be under 6% at the end of his first term. Under Obama, we got there in half the time, reducing the deficit all the while and not giving massive tax breaks to millionaires.
I hope he runs, too. If you think he got routed in 2012, just wait till he runs without the benefit of the anti-Obama racist vote.
That really depends on who his opponent is. He probably can’t beat Hillary Clinton. But Martin O’Malley? What is often forgotten from the last two elections is that Republicans usually raise and spend more money in Presidential elections. Barack Obama’s popularity with the base changed all that. It increased the money they could raise and increased turnout. A Democrat like O’Malley, who checks all the ideological boxes but isn’t exciting in any other way, will not be able to raise money or inspire turnout at the same levels.
Mitt Romney strikes me as a guy who would really, really like to be President but doesn’t see an opportunity right now. But if Clinton stays out, that’s a big opportunity for any reasonable Republican. The only powerhouse Democrat, Cuomo, is tainted now. The rest of the field consists of well qualified but unexciting candidates for the base. Unless Warren gets in, but I can’t see an unabashed Massachusetts liberal winning a Presidential race unless she’s lucky enough to draw Rick Santorum or something.
Now, Universe, I know I probably haven’t been a very good pantheist, but if you could just give me this one sign…