Mitt in 2016?


The buzz is out there.  Mitt Romney is reportedly signaling to the GOP donor base that if he doesn’t face a difficult primary season and is, in a sense, anointed, he would consider running for President again in 2016.  Publicly he claims there is no way he would run, and I would be very surprised if he did.  Yet, is it possible?

A Romney run could only happen if Republican party (read: the main power brokers and donors) agree that they see Mitt as the best chance to unite the party and beat presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.  There is a logic to that.   The Republicans will have a better shot if there is no bloody primary battle for the nomination.   Not only will there be more money in the campaign coffers for the fall, but a united party should fare better than a divided one.

Richard Nixon was the last Presidential loser to come back and win - and that was almost 50 years ago!

Richard Nixon was the last Presidential loser to come back and win – and that was almost 50 years ago!

Of course, the biggest argument against Mitt is that he’s a proven loser in the Presidential sweepstakes.   It’s a rare Presidential candidate that goes from being a loser to a winner.   Richard Nixon did it in 1968, but that was eight years after his loss.   Of course, Romney’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, lost a high stakes primary battle.  But that’s not the same – and that was in 2008.

Would conservatives accept Romney?   He was always seen by some as too northeastern or moderate.   If he were the candidate, they would – but I’d expect them not to forego having a true conservative run in the primaries.   While people like Cruz, Rubio, and Walker are probably un-electable, the tea party believes that somehow there is a secret conservative majority in the US that would come out and vote them into office.  Of course, they also believe Obama should be impeached (eyes rolling).

Things like Romneycare still evoke distrust amongst conservatives, so he'd need to early on choose a conservative running mate.

Things like Romneycare still evoke distrust among conservatives, so he’d need to early on choose a conservative running mate.

One way Romney could deflect conservative opposition is agree early to a tea party friendly VP candidate.   That would scare a lot of people (heartbeat away from the Presidency), but historically the VP choice has not been a game changer.   Only John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin seemed to actually hurt his chances, but that was less due to her views than the fact she proved herself not ready for prime time.

Romney would need to find someone who he could respect and trust – not a Cruz, perhaps Rubio (who has been a bit more careful about being too extreme) or maybe Nikki Haley, Paul Ryan (an interesting repeat performance), or Susanna Martinez.   Choosing a woman would be helpful to his cause, especially if he runs against Hillary.   There doesn’t seem to be an obvious black running mate in the GOP ready for the role, though neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson got a lot of conservative attention when he spoke at the 2013 prayer breakfast in proximity to President Obama.

Carson is smart and acceptable to conservatives, but as a non-politician he says stupid things, like "Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to America since slavery."

Carson is smart and acceptable to conservatives, but as a non-politician he says stupid things, like “Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to America since slavery.”

Carson was not over the top extreme, but some of his comments (e.g., seeming to compare bestiality with homosexuality) could come back to haunt him.   More damaging is his lack of political experience – would he have the discipline and ambition to run a national campaign?   Yet he is intelligent, black, and conservative – the right would love to embrace someone who is brilliant but does not believe in evolution.   Most arguments against evolution are inane and batty – but that’s mainly because of the people making those arguments.   Dr. Carson can make a cogent and intelligent argument for conservative positions usually seen as anti-rational.

Still, he’s a long shot, as is a Mitt reboot.  The only reason the possibility can be considered is that the GOP is fearful of a neophyte tea party type hijacking the primary process, yet worried about turning off conservatives already irked by Thad Cochran’s victory.  Mitt developed support among the right in the 2012 campaign and he might be the Republican’s best shot to have a chance in 2016.    Not likely, but….

  1. #1 by List of X on June 27, 2014 - 17:12

    Mitt is probably still the best chance GOP has (or close to it), but there’s just no way people like Ted Cruz will roll over and give Mitt the nomination.

  2. #2 by lbwoodgate on June 28, 2014 - 06:04

    The GOP is in desperation mode, i.e. their attempt to sue the President, so it’s possible that they think Romney might fare better a third time. But his wealth and previous comments about 47% of Americans being moochers and takers will be exploited by the Democrats, as it should be. Income disparity is still a big issue and this imagery of Romney will subtract from any appeal the GOP may try to present to Independents and moderates.

    • #3 by SShiell on June 29, 2014 - 07:48

      Yeah, the GOP’s desperate action of suing the President was so outrageous the Supreme court voted 9-0 in agreement – with the GOP!

      • #4 by Scott Erb on June 29, 2014 - 09:33

        I think the Administration has won more than it’s lost in the Supreme Court. But that’s not the suit Larry was talking about. The right is in full time President bashing these days. It’s all about setting up the 2014 election and trying to tear down the President. It’s not based on reality, it’s propaganda. If the economy adds jobs and things look better by late summer it won’t work.

      • #5 by lbwoodgate on June 29, 2014 - 10:20

        Obviously SS you are unaware of the lawsuit John Boehner has promised to file against the Prez.. The one that goes after Obama for doing stuff that the Party of NO compromise refuses to do.

  3. #6 by SShiell on June 29, 2014 - 15:52

    “Obviously SS you are unaware of the lawsuit John Boehner has promised to file against the Prez.”

    No, I was aware of it but until he files the lawsuit, it is just like your comment – just so much BS. I thought it was obvious I was referring to Obama’s blatant attempt to circumvent the Constitution and getting spanked by the Supreme court 9-0 for his efforts. Next time I will draw you a picture.

    • #7 by Scott Erb on June 29, 2014 - 21:07

      Fights over the separation of power are common – it’s not a political party thing or even a personal thing. Every President and every Congress fights, and this has gotten worse because the House has been so obstructionist as to create real dangers to the economy and working of government. But that’s why we have the Supreme Court – they can make the call on issues like this. Bush was spanked by in 2006, you could list them all. It was pretty clear to me Larry was talking about Boehner’s threat (which I think is just a PR gimmick). The right wing has convinced themselves that Obama is doing horrible things – which is amusing, in that their anger at Obama mirrors the kind of anger the left had with Bush. Perhaps we’re seeing political karma in action!

      • #8 by SShiell on June 29, 2014 - 22:19

        What good ole “Larry” meant may have been clear to you but that does not mean anything from this side of the court. And if you think Boehner’s statement is nothing but a PR stunt, that is still just what you think. As I stated, it is nothing but BS until it is filed.

        And if these fights over separation of powers are so common, then pray tell me when the last time a standing president was hit 9-0 by the Supreme Court? (By the way, Bush’s spanking in 2006 was by a 5-4 count)

      • #9 by Scott Erb on June 29, 2014 - 23:01

        The vote doesn’t matter – the decision is a decision. The 5-3 decision against Bush was just as strong as 9-0 … and Obama has won some cases too, don’t forget! So did Bush. It’s when you try to do the “four legs good, two legs bad” bit that things go awry.

    • #10 by lbwoodgate on June 29, 2014 - 21:14

      “Next time I will draw you a picture.”

      No need. Just try and use what little cognitive skills you might have when reading someone’s comment, especially when there are two likely scenarios. The correct thing for you to have done was to have asked questions so you could narrow the issue down. There is a bigger universe out there SS than the one you’ve constructed for yourself.

      Hope this helps.

      • #11 by SShiell on June 29, 2014 - 21:43


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: