Image 01 Image 03

Should We Get Ready for Romney 2016?

Should We Get Ready for Romney 2016?

It’s happening. Definitely. Maybe.

Will the third time be a charm for Mitt Romney?

In a CNN poll run earlier this summer, 53% of Americans said that if the 2012 election were held today, they would vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. (Obama managed to pull in 44% of respondents.)

This poll, coupled with a few teasers from interviews with Romney himself, have refueled rumors that Romney is quietly preparing himself for another run at the Presidency.

Via Byron York of the Washington Examiner:

That belief is wrong. 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. That doesn’t mean he will decide to do it, but it does mean that Mitt 2016 is a real possibility.

A significant number of Romney’s top financial supporters from 2012 have decided not to commit to any other 2016 candidate until they hear a definitive word from Romney. They believe they are doing it with the tacit approval of Romney himself. “Spencer Zwick has never said specifically to everyone to keep your powder dry,” says the plugged-in supporter, referring to Romney’s former finance chairman who remains very close to Romney. “But the body language, the intonation, and the nuance are absolutely there.”

So far, Romney’s most dedicated supporters do not believe that his disavowals have been anywhere near definitive. They were particularly encouraged in late August, when Romney, in the middle of explaining to radio host Hugh Hewitt why he decided not to run in 2016, seemed — at Hewitt’s prodding — to open the door just a bit by adding that “circumstances can change.”

Love him or hate him, a third run for Romney is far from an electoral unicorn; it took Reagan three tries to make it to the White House, and he was responsible for ending the Cold War and overseeing the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.

Not bad for a long shot.

Still, a Romney candidacy is problematic not only in the primary, but also in the general. Primary voters have yet to rally around a candidate, and Tea Party voters—the primary base our most conservative candidates will have to target if they want to gain momentum—have made it clear that missteps with regards to purity won’t be tolerated.

Those same voters’ knee-jerk reaction will almost certainly be to reject the “unity” candidate in favor of the dream of a moral majority, which will in turn motivate more moderate Republicans to rally around a Romney or a Christie. A wild card VP candidate could bring the two together, but it would take solid chatter about a Rubio or a Paul as the #2 before a solid base of diverse supporters would rally around Romney.

By the time the general rolls around, the Democrats will have deployed the beginnings of every old-rich-white-guy-out-to-get-your-food-stamps-and-also-your-uterus meme they can come up with. The name of their game will be “same old GOP,” and they’ll be running defense against GOP base-building messaging tactics that have already expanded both our audience and our data universe.

Could we run Romney against Hillary and maintain that expanded message without the help of a Rubio, or a Susana Martinez? I wouldn’t bet on it.

I respect Mitt Romney. I think he would have made a much more effective President than Barack Obama; but I’m not sold on the idea of supporting him for a third run.

That being said, can’t we make it through the midterms before we’re forced to choose a side? Republicans in all 50 states need to be focusing on winning in November. Then, we’ll talk about Romney.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Americans need a junk yard dog that will take it to the fascists in the courts, the bureaucracies, the lame stream media and the banksters/lobbyists.

Mitt ain’t it.

    Speaking of dogs, I think my Labrador Retriever could beat Barry if the election were held today. The only ones still supporting him are the full-blown Marxists and the Racists.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Mysticbeetle. | September 26, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    I hope not, as well.

    However, ironically it may be, Romney at least has a “record” of sorts to run on. He has himself on video record predicting all the things that happened during Øbama II. He can truly say, “I told you so.”

    But we need another president who believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming about like a fish needs a bicycle. We truly do need a Junk Yard Dog.

    Ted Cruz, 2016!

The fact that 44% would STILL re-elect the black messiah tells me we are just so screwed as a country.

Goddess, I hope Tea Party favorite, Willard RMoney runs again.

Can someone explain to me why I should feel warm and squishy over this news?
I’m as cold to him this time as I was after the second debate where it became clear that he had no beliefs beyond those of his handlers.

Sorry, but I’m tired of holding my nose while I pull a lever.

If we need anyone in the White House now, we need a financial problem solver like Romney. Romney made a fortune taking insolvent businesses and turning them around and America today is an insolvent business. The problem is that Romney won’t make a difference because few want to recognize that America is facing insolvency and far fewer will have the courage to implement the changes that need to be made to fix the mess we are in. While a Romney presidency would have the solutions, the nation lacks the political will and so Romney would likely be a failed presidency. What would make this situation even worse is that Washington is now so split that Democrats and Republicans need to mend fences and get on the same boat to work together and that will likely not happen. Obama created some very deep wounds that has split the country and the parties and it will take a long time to heal from the damage Obama has wrought.

    peg_c in reply to Cleetus. | September 26, 2014 at 9:46 am

    We need to DEFEAT Democrats, not come together with them. Romney won’t do it and RINOs won’t do it. No RINO will ever beat ANY Dem.

      Tex Detroit in reply to peg_c. | September 26, 2014 at 10:55 am

      Nor will any Tealibani beat any good Dem candidate nationally. What do do? What to do?

      max_kain in reply to peg_c. | September 26, 2014 at 11:20 am

      Obama isn’t running next election so this poll just shows “buyers remorse” from some of the population. I would also venture to guess that these polls did not take into consideration the metropolitan areas, the ones that overwhelmingly voted in Obama just over race. The metro voters, the ones in Philedelphia, Cincinatti, Chicago, Atlanta, and other cities with large welfare blocks were primarily responsible for voting in the idiot-in-chief. Most polls also show that Hillary would beat Romney in 2016. We don’t need a RINO, we need to remember that “Republicans win when they are conservative” (Reagan, I believe). We can’t present yet another weak candidate who is more aggressive towards his primary challengers than his opponent.

I’d go with Mitt over Jeb, which is like saying I prefer Ginsburg over Holder. Which is to say, NO. And (not to change the subject, but) I think Dems will finagle Holder onto SCOTUS after getting Ginsberg out.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to peg_c. | September 26, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    I’d go with Garfield the Cat over Mittens. But ANYTHING with a pulse is better than Warren or Hitlerly. They are just Chucky Schooo-mah without a Y-chromosome.

    (Chucky does have a Y-chromosome, doesn’t he?)

If the election was held today a Kansas dog catcher would be preferred over Obama by anyone paying attention to what he’s done.
If Romney really thinks this kind of poll now means anything for the 2016 election he’s still the fool he was when he lost to Obama.

I’m sorry, it took Reagan three tries to get to the White House?
He only campaigned in 1976, then again when he won in 1980 (and 1984). What am I missing?

    Lina Inverse in reply to bill427. | September 26, 2014 at 11:02 am

    From what I’ve read, Reagan competed, but not that fiercely, for the nomination in 1968. He had only been elected governor of California in 1966, so it was very early, but if there was no better candidate he and his supporters positioned him for it.

    As I remember, the other main candidate was none other than Romney’s father, governor of Michigan.

      You (and Amy) are correct. Next time I won’t do it off the top of my head. I was distracted with other things as a 5 year old at the time.

I’m pulling for Ted Cruz! (The real constitutional scholar)

I hate to make so narrow but maybe a Latino can beat a Women! (Shrug)

The problem is that Romney won’t be running against Obama in 2016. It’ll probably be against Clinton. So check those numbers before considering a third time around the block with this guy.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | September 26, 2014 at 10:25 am

Mitt would make a terrific VP.
He could take on assignments and resolve them and if needed he could step up to the main job without missing a beat.

I agree with MysticBeetle above, we need a fighter not a technocrat.

If we nominate Romney again we’ll have to change our nickname from The Stupid Party to The Brain Dead Party.

Mittens needs to go away, but, more importantly, the Beltway RINO idiots of the GOPe *really* need to go away, and stay gone.

as long as they run the party, they will continue to force “electable” squishes like this down our throats, because they would rather be in charge of the perpetual minority party than lose their place at the DC trough…

they don’t care anymore about the future of this country than Bill Ayers does.

Speaking of Kansas I foond this nugget.
Sources: Milton Wolf weighs Greg Orman endorsement
I always maintained that a good part of the Tea Party is a false flag operation.

    Same Same in reply to Captain Keogh. | September 26, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Wolf would require that Orman caucus with the Republicans as a condition of his endorsement – hardly a false flag.

    The RNSC screwed the pooch on Kansas (and several others). Wolf might actually pull this one back from a total disaster.

The country was the loser in November 2012. Mitt Romney would e made a fine president in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower.

    Tex Detroit in reply to Captain Keogh. | September 26, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    What planet do you live on? This President Eisenhower?

    “Workers have a right to organize into unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. And a strong, free labor movement is an invigorating and necessary part of our industrial society.”

    “Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of their right to join the union of their choice.”

    “Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things, but their number is negligible and”–and the president says–“their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

    The same Eisenhower who wanted to balance the budget by raising taxes on the rich?

    Neither Ike, nor St. Reagan could win the Tea Party nomination, without flip-flopping all over the place in the general, like you forced Weird Willard to do.

    You still don’t understand the problem, which is fine. 🙂

      Ragspierre in reply to Tex Detroit. | September 26, 2014 at 3:34 pm

      What we all understand is that you are a hate-twisted liar for the Collective who knows jack-nothing about history, economics, or what Conservatives believe.

      Anyone who can read the WHOLE context of Ike’s views on taxation and the economy will see you for what you are…merely a repeater for the crap your moonbattery packs in your ears.

      Could you balance our budget with tax increases now, stupid? (Lemme help: of course not. The recent model of France SHOULD tell even someone as brain-washed as you that the Laffer Curve is simply a statement of obvious economic FACT.)

      Plus, there is nothing Ike said about unions and SMALL GOVERNMENT that I have not said, in the context of PRIVATE SECTOR unions held to the same rule of law as are all other forms of organization, and a very basic set of regulations (best kept at the state levels).

      Of course, you either are too stupid to know or you’re pretending that FDR specifically outlawed PUBIC SECTOR collective bargaining, though people were free to associate in what they called a “union”.

      Whadda moronic liar.

Christie’s damaged, not by the witchhunt Bridgegate, but by his own actions and positions, while Jeb Bush’s last name remains a four-letter word in American politics, and against a Hillary/Bill campaign Jeb forfeits the ability to argue against family dynasties, insider status, etc.

So who’s left (pun intended) among potential RINO candidates? Mitt Romney, COME ON DOWN!

I think the GOP will say nothing pro/con about a Romney candidacy now because they might end up needing him later.


RE: this poll showing Romney up 53/44 over Obama. These sorts of polls are meaningless. It’s like a Sports Illustrated poll on which team would win, the 1972 Dolphins or the 1985 Bears. That the game or election cannot possibly happen changes how people vote. It’s as accurate a measure as is a team’s first preseason game, that is, not accurate at all.

How about a Paul/Romney ticket?

You folks who keep throwing the term “RINO” around so promiscuously have no idea what you are talking about. Lincoln, Coolidge, Eisenhower, Dewey, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan etc. all would have recognized Romney as one of their own. The real RINO’s are the Dixiecrats and their heirs who have taken over a good part of the Republican Party. Come to think of it I guess there is a reason why at Republican conventions there are no pictures or mention of great Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

    Ragspierre in reply to Captain Keogh. | September 26, 2014 at 4:27 pm

    Dude! That was one of the stupidest things I’ve seen anybody post who claims any connection with the conservative movement.

    Nixon was the last of the great Republican Progressives. His love of fascist economics is exceeded only by Barracula. He was ANYTHING BUT a conservative.

    Plus, you need to read up on that whole “Dixiecrat” lie.


    Eastwood Ravine in reply to Captain Keogh. | September 26, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    You need to do your research before making a post containing those statements. Willard Mitt Romney disavowed Ronald Reagan during his campaign for the Senate in 1994.

I don’t expect beltway Republican loyalists to understand Retail Politics.

Do you dust off a piece from 4 years ago that didn’t sell to a majority of window shoppers and call it trendy? No.

There are millions of Republicans in this country to draw from. Stop letting the narcissistic GOP old farts and consultants run and ruin the show.

Romney would be a very good President. But we’ve learned that he’s a poor campaigner — running for national office with the national press that we’ve got requires someone willing and able to hit back with a smile, ala Reagan. Romney showed faint signs of that near the end of the campaign, but too little too late.

We need someone who can win the office, as well as get things done when he gets there.

(Romney might indeed make an excellent veep, depending on what balance the main candidate needs. I’d personally love to see Romney get to formally campaign on his “I told you so!” jag, but it would almost certainly be counterproductive with the voters we need to win back.)

The short answer is we need a 3rd Party. There is no practical difference between the Democrat Party positions and the Republican Party positions, individual party members have no real voice.

What we need is a benevolent dictatorship until, you know, I get all the messes cleaned up. Then I’ll abdicate. What do we say?

PersonFromPorlock | September 26, 2014 at 3:58 pm

Romney might not be too bad – turnarounds are his specialty. Also, his being elected would be an admission by the majority that it screwed up in 2012.

We need to get away from the idea that the president runs the country; the Congress has been too passive for too long, waiting for whoever holds the office to propose legislation they’re supposed to be creating on their own. Which is why I want to see Cruz become a power in the Senate and not move on to a ‘higher’ (it isn’t) office.

It doesn’t matter if Romney (or another candidate) can win a majority of votes. Democrats win because they hold the states that have the most electoral college votes. As long as welfare states vote democratic, we will have problems getting any Republican elected.

If we only allowed tax paying, legal citizens to vote, or had a competency test to vote, Republicans would win every election.

Let’s face it; Ed Snowden beats Mitt Romney. Ed represents the land of the free and home of the brave. Mitt had every weapon he could use against Obama, but Mitt was afraid to pull the trigger. Snowden is not a coward. We need someone who knows how to dish it out.

Romney has proved himself a piece of easily malleable clay, capable of changing shape anywhere along the scale from center-left to pretend conservative. I think he’s just a couple ticks off being a Democrat in his heart of hearts, and in the past has been a Democrat when it suited him.

I think he has a fine character and family, but when it comes to professional attributes, the man is a businessman, not a politician per se, and certainly not the bull dog we need in the White House in 2016.

We’ve stared at a stalemated congress for a long time, and with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al, a stalemate is a win. But we’re losing sight of some absolutely monumental problems facing the country in terms of debt and deficits, entitlement insolvency and budget bloat, terrible tax system, non-existent immigration management, and so many other issues.

At some point somebody in DC needs to forego self-serving politics, take a risk, and start getting things done, real things, real solutions.

“Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?”

America needs a hero – and it ain’t Mitt Romney.

I like him. I think he’d be an excellent administrator, which is what a president is. He presides over the government. I think he’d pick good people, good judges and all the rest. I don’t think he’s a fool regarding foreign policy and how economies work.

That being said, I’d prefer Governors Jindal or Walker. But neither has an ounce of charisma and, unfortunately, this is a very media saturated world. Look at Obama. No qualifications but charisma up the patootie. So it’ll be Christie or at least a heck of a dogfight between Romney and Christie. Cruz could sneak up the middle though and I wouldn’t discount him. As much as I am chary of senators (especially after Obama), Cruz might just have the balls. And I still love Palin. Dumb? I don’t care. She isn’t a fool and that’s what you can’t have.

Just a guess. Not a profession of deep belief and pious wish. So don’t throw anything at me you wouldn’t throw at your spouse, ok?

If Mittens hogs the GOP presidential nomination, get ready for Presidents Clinton or Warren — and another 4 years of backstabbing coward Squeaker John Boehner.

What Mittens and political will have in common, is very little.

And by some miracle Mittens does win the presidency, we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble by simply electing Squeaker Boehner as president.