Posted on 09/30/2014 9:25:10 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
In recent days and weeks there has been renewed speculation that Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president will again be a candidate in 2016. There has been some talk about this for months, but it has grown louder in recent days. Yesterday, The Washington Post described Mr. Romney’s evolving potential candidacy as “The road from ‘I’m not doing it again’ to ‘Circumstances can change’ is paved with favorable polls, 2012 predictions that came true and public statements from supporters.”
Last week in an article titled “Romney 2016 is Real,” The Washington Examiner wrote “Romney is talking with advisers, consulting with his family, keeping a close eye on the emerging ’16 Republican field, and carefully weighing the pluses and minuses of another run.” Also last week, Jonathan Last at The Weekly Standard posed the rhetorical question of whether the possibility of a Mitt Romney 2016 candidacy is real and offered the response “Do I really for real think this is real? Oh yes. I believe that it will be a very short hop for the Romneys to talk themselves into ‘America needs me/him now.’”
For Mr. Romney there is no downside to this speculation at this time. If he ultimately decides not to run, a few weeks of generally positive media coverage and a brief return to the almost national spotlight will have done him no harm. However, if Mr. Romney decides to run, it is to his benefit to get in the race sooner rather than later.
Despite Mr. Romney’s defeat in 2012 to a vulnerable incumbent President Barack Obama, the rationale for another Romney candidacy, at least from a strategic perspective, is reasonably clear. None of the Republicans whose names are most frequently mentioned now, even those of potentially strong candidates like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul or Chris Christie have ever raised the money and built the kind of organization necessary to run for president. There is only one Republican who has built a legitimate presidential campaign structure and is not to old to run in 2016. At least for now, that alone is reason why a Romney 2016 candidacy cannot be ignored.
If Mr. Romney runs in 2016, it could be a very different race for the former Massachusetts governor, perhaps more difficult than he might realize now. In 2012, Romney ran against a very weak field of candidates. Potentially strong opponents like Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman never put their campaigns together. Other major candidates, notably Rick Perry, turned out to to be terrible campaigners. Ultimately nobody raised enough money to compete with Mr. Romney who when 2012 began had raised more money than the next two Republicans combined. Mr. Romney’s strongest primary opponents were former speaker Newt Gingrich who relied heavily on the donations of eccentric right wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson, Rick Santorum who simply never did the work to raise the money to compete, and Ron Paul who most traditional Republicans did not like. Despite this advantage in fundraising and organization, Mr. Romney still only won 40% of the votes cast in that primary suggesting that he was never beloved within his own party.
That was the context in which Mr. Romney was able to, relatively early in the campaign season, win support from most Republican opinion leaders and fundraisers. If this time around any of the other Republican candidates can convince those political and financial elites that they too are serious candidates, Mr. Romney will no longer enjoy the monopoly or support from those groups that he had in 2012. That will make for a very different primary campaign this time for Mr. Romney. Right now the attention and mentions of a possible campaign in 2016 is good for the defeated 2012 Republican nominee, but turning that buzz and media attention into a successful primary campaign may prove a lot tougher against a stronger and better funded primary, especially as some of those candidates are already getting commitments from important donors.
Nominating Mr. Romney may seem to some Republicans like a quick and easy solution to a difficult primary season, but the candidate who lost for the party in 2012 might do just as poorly in 2016. In 2012, Romney made a tactical decision to position himself as a true conservative across the spectrum of issues. On balance, that was a mistake. It helped him get through a primary season he was going to win anyway but made it harder for him to win voters from the center in the general election, while never enjoying more than begrudging support from his party’s conservative base. That too is part of Romney’s legacy and will not serve him well in 2016. If Cruz or Rubio or another well funded conservative emerges, Romney will be vulnerable from the right in a primary. Even if he manages to win the nomination, Romney’s efforts to position himself, not always plausibly, as a right wing conservative and his unfortunate sound bites from 2012 will make it difficult for Romney to expand Republican support in what will likely be a difficult general election campaign.
Actually, I think he turned out to be the second RINO president (Theodore Roosevelt was the first).
That’s all we need. A squishy republican with little to no conservative principles. Yep.
Translation: They got nothin’
Chud, first of all, investigate please the official "Libertarian" party platform before voting, and understand that there is a vast difference between small-l libertarians, whose principles of limited government and personal responsibility the Founding Fathers embraced, and the official, extremely leftist, bastardized, and false Libertarian party. They are as different as night and day.
Also, be advised that Ansell, who is deranged when it comes to small-l libertarianism to the point that he will libel, lie, and make accusations for which he should rightly have his nose punched by HONORABLE folks, is one of maybe half a dozen FReepers who are mentally unhinged when it comes to being honest about what small-l libertarianism is.
However, that tiny little group of FReepers squawk and holler and libel and LIE so loudly and frequently that it's easy to get the impression that they aren't a very, very tiny minority. If you read FR long enough and keep a little logbook, as I have learned to do over the years so I can keep my FReepers straight, you'll find that the VAST majority of common sense CHRISTIAN limited government conservatives understand the value of small-l libertarianism and hold vicious liars like ansel12, who insult the morals and honor of very good people, in contempt, and rightly.
Please do what I do and ignore ansel12's posts when it comes to libertarianism, along with the other four or five FReepers who will chime in with him using the same libelous insults, insulting your morality and your very honor. They are sick and demented, and A TINY MINORITY that yells and screams so horrifically that they create the illusion that they're not. But crunch the numbers -- I have, and truly, they are in company with are very, very very few people here. The overwhelming majority of true conservatives understand very well that Ansel12 and The Rabidly Anti-Libertarian Liars on FR are demented.
Romney or SWMNBN - who cares? Either way, it’s BOHICA time.
Oh, I don't know -- when the name "Romney" is involved, "barf alert" is redundant!!! {^)
The Washington Post described Mr. Romney’s evolving potential candidacy as “The road from ‘I’m not doing it again’ to ‘Circumstances can change’
That was the most rabid, deranged and ridiculous, stalking post that I have ever seen at freerepublic.
All exploding from a simple post (49) on the Libertarian Party platform and a guy who is saying he will vote for them.
Wow.
NO MITT ROMNEY.
Santorum is NOT fiscally Conservative. NO RICK SANTORUM.
CRUZ, CRUZ, CRUZ.
No, he said he will not vote for Romney, you know, the GOP-e liberal who meets your description almost to a ‘T’ other than you left out “lying, big government healthcare pimping SOB.”
I noticed the similarities between Romney and the libertarian party platform as I was posting, and we know that Mitt came out against the GOP’s pro-life platform after he won the nomination (along with his decades of wanting to homosexualize the military), but nothing is as harsh as the libertarian party platform that I was describing.
“full term abortion and homosexualizing the military, gay marriage, completely open borders and even shutting down the Border Patrol and INS, Meth advertising etc”
*ALERT* *ALERT* RINO in the house *ALERT* *ALERT*
Candidates who stay at home make it difficult for conservatives to want to come out and vote. But then those RINOs really don't want to win do they. They are just making the election easier for their democrat brethren. They know they have more in common with them than they have with conservatives.
Mitt should eneter the Primary—debate the other Republicans and we can make the choice! Not the Media! A debate between Mittens and Ted Cruz would be interesting and well worth watching. same can be said it Sarah Palin tossed her hat into the ring. Newt and Mitt—that would be a debate to hear. Mitt deserves to run—BUT it doesn’t mean we have to vote for him in the primary—I see him as an ideal VP.
First, your RINO Romney must apologize on his knees
to Gov. Palin, to the American people,
to Gov. Thompson, to the Speaker, to Mr. Cain,
and to everyone under his damned imposition
RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE and gay marriage and now polygamy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.