November 9, 2008

Will Romney Run?

I am kind of wondering

…sources close to the CEO-turned-politician say he’s very much uncertain about whether he’ll run for elective office again and is keeping a close eye on what direction the party takes in the months ahead, especially with regard to Palin.

Romney is extraordinarily close to members of his family, and most are opposed to another run.

He is, though, likely to stay involved at least at a policy level.

“What I’d say is he’s keeping his options open for now,” said one source close to Romney.

Add to that, this quote from before the elections from his spokesperson,

“Gov. Romney had his shot at the White House, and he lost fair and square,” Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said. “That opportunity is unlikely to come along again. Gov. Romney is pouring all his energy into electing McCain-Palin and other Republicans, and that has been his single focus since leaving the presidential race.”

…and this one from Romney himself

Romney, who sought the Republican presidential nomination earlier this year, said he will not be on the 2012 ballot.

“I think it’s unlikely that I’ll be running again,” Romney said.

Romney compared a run for the White House to a window opening offering the right timing and the right opportunity.

Of course, these were prior to the election day, and he could have been talking this way simply because he felt John McCain would win, and that would make things unlikely. But then again, at that point who really thought McCain would win?

Romney has some reasons not to win. The big two I can think of are his family vetoing it (more importantly his wife) and the success of Barack Obama. At this point, I think the GOP has more of an opportunity to paint Congress as a bastion of idiots, than paint Obama as a screw up. I could be wrong, but we hear so often that Obama will probably be the next Jimmy Carter, but what if he is not? What if he becomes the Dems Regan? At that point whoever runs in 2012 as the GOP nominee will be a martyr for the cause, and our best bets (including Romney and Jindal) will be better off to wait until 2016.

Update

Another quote from a Romney adviser…

And Charley Manning, a longtime adviser to Mitt Romney, poured some cold water on the former Massachusetts governor’s ambitions in a radio show appearance.

“I’d be surprised if Mitt ever ran again for president…I sure don’t think it was the best experience of his life,” Manning said, citing anti-Mormon bias in the Republican primaries.

“There are other things he can do,” Manning said.

by @ 9:15 pm. Filed under Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Uncategorized
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2008/11/09/will-romney-run/trackback/

102 Responses to “Will Romney Run?”

  1. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Great post Jason. I believe we will only see one of Romney or Palin in 2012, maybe neither. Although most cannot see it now, they actually take from the same pool of voters.

  2. Chip91 Says:

    Lets see how Obama does as President. If he does an average or poor job, I can almost guarantee you he’ll run again.

  3. BarkTwiggs Says:

    If Obama flubs the economy, then Romney would be the obvious choice to run against an incumbent president. However, if things get better, whoever is nominated may become the sacrificial lamb in 2012. 2016 would be pushing it age-wise with Romney being almost 70 then. It shouldn’t be an issue, but for some it is. However, in 8 years, what with increased longevity and the whatnot, a large portion of the voting bloc will be older as well, so that point should me moot.

    Jindal for sure will be involved in 2016 whether its top or bottom of the ticket.

  4. DaveG Says:

    Let’s put it this way: when was the last time that a charismatic, likable president lost his reelection bid?

  5. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    The problem is, real family men like Romney will not run if the wife and children say they do not want the emotional roller coaster. Same goes for Palin and Sanford.

  6. Hunter Says:

    More and more I think a repeat of the 90s is likely, with the Democratic Congress taking the fall for Obama in a couple years, which will allow him a fairly easy path to reelection.

    And then comes Bobby Jindal.

  7. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Jindal will show his political immaturity and run. Too bad.

  8. Matthew E. Miller Says:

    DaveG,

    1976.

  9. Matthew E. Miller Says:

    Eh, I mean 1980.

  10. Jason Bonham Says:

    7. Everyone around him will push him into it. They don’t want to be stuck in LA politics for the net 10 years.

  11. Jason Bonham Says:

    9. That’s what I was thinking.

  12. Matthew E. Miller Says:

    Kristofer,

    Yeah, I know, it worked out so terribly for Obama (who has less experience then Jindal TODAY). I think it’s pretty clear American voters simply don’t care enough about inexperience to disqualify a candidate they like/want to vote for.

  13. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Jason, could it be possible that the money Romney spent in the primary was a one time only with his family? The reason why Romney was #3 on my list is because he can compete with obama in terms of $.

  14. DaveG Says:

    Jimmy Carter was charismatic?

    Jimmy Carter was depressing.

    Ever see his malaise speech?

  15. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    12, that is not what I meant. Stop presuming, dude!!!

  16. MatthewK Says:

    “If Obama flubs the economy, then Romney would be the obvious choice to run against an incumbent president. However, if things get better, whoever is nominated may become the sacrificial lamb in 2012″

    …thats what people thought about 1992 – hence why many high-profile DNCers stayed away.

    As for Romney, I think he’ll end up running. Clearly, he has no intention of retiring from politics, and Romney is far better suited to be a leader than some media personality. If he intends to stay involved in policy, which it sounds like he does, then there are few reasons as to why he wouldn’t run. Really, only elected officials really have a say in policy.

    He’s also shifted a little bit – he seemed completely against it a couple weeks ago, now that McCain is out, he is “keeping his options open”.

    All that said, it DOES seem as if the Romney supporters might need to do a little coaxing. Basically, if we can show him there is significant interest, I think he’ll run.

  17. AC1 Says:

    Does it scare anyone that in 2012 we will have a broke primary winner in March or April and Obama is probably already raising money for 2012 right now? Clinton started running ads for 1996 in fall of 95. Obama may start next week.

  18. Jason Bonham Says:

    13. I would be surprised. I doubt he even spent the interest he made that year.

    I am also guessing this time around he won’t spend so much of his money. He’ll be able to work more off of free media from the get go, which he couldn’t last time around. He spent so much money in early advertising to raise his virtually unknown profile, he won’t need that this time.

  19. Matthew E. Miller Says:

    DaveG,

    Jimmy had oodles of Southern Charm in 76′ and was likable throughout. My mom, who’s never voted for a Democrat, still likes Jimmy Carter. He wasn’t set the world on fire charismatic, but he was plenty charming. Still is.

  20. MatthewK Says:

    “Jason, could it be possible that the money Romney spent in the primary was a one time only with his family?”

    The need for Romney to spend his own money in 2012 would be virtually nil. The reason Romney had to spend so much was because he needed to get his name recognition up. Going into the next cycle, he will ahve the name recognition to raise large sums of money from day one.

  21. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    #180 great point. He has the name recognition.

  22. Jason Bonham Says:

    21. Wow, you can see in the future. Are you really projecting my post will do so well? :)

  23. MatthewK Says:

    Here is the thing, everything Romney did from the day he dropped out indicated a clear interest in running again – including the early and graceful exit itself. He endorsed McCain, eventhough they were miles apart personally and ideologically, he campaigned for McCain, even though it was in the interests of a future run for McCain to lose, he even came out in support of Sarah Palin, even though she was clearly inexperienced and would likely never have been picked by Romney himself.

    If Romney had truly believed it was his only shot, and he really wanted to be President, why would he not have continued, at least to Texas, where polls gave him the lead?

  24. Sean P Says:

    DaveG: Carter wasn’t particularly charismatic by 1980, but he was in 1976. See also Herbert Hoover, who was practically a rock star in 1928, Theodore Roosevelt, who was enormously charismatic but still lost in 1912. That’s about all I can think of but we don’t typically nominate charasmatic Presidents so there aren’t a lot of examples to use.

    Also, when was the last time three consecutive Presidents won re-election? (hint: it was before the Civil War)

  25. cwpete Says:

    Saying that it is “unlikely that I’ll be running again” is not the same thing as saying I won’t run again. I think the best quote is from Romney’s spokesman about keeping his options open.

    Even if a 2012 run is a possibility, no smart politician would even speculate about another run in the next election cycle this close us having lost the last one. It is way too premature. We’ll have to see how things are looking about 18 months into Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term.

  26. MatthewK Says:

    I didn’t realize that first one, with “keeping his options open” was pre-election day. That makes me more likely to think that he WILL run.

    Also –

    “But then again, at that point who really thought McCain would win?”

    None, or very few – though I seem to remember quite a few people looking through VERY rose colored glasses on this site – but you’re asking the wrong question. The real question is, would any Republican who wanted a future even acknowledged the possibility of McCain losing?

  27. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Act~blog, stop attacking Palin and read Jason’a post. This may be something of a signal from some candidates, who will not be candidates. The field may be different from what we are expecting today.

  28. Brett Says:

    How would Romney do if he did run? Could he win the southern states that he had such a hard time winning this time around?

  29. Kavon W. Nikrad Says:

    There is not enough charisma in this world to overcome 8%-9% unemployment and long-term economic malaise.

    If you think that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are going to do the things necessary to right the ship, i.e.- balance the budget, cut government spending, revise Sarbox, cut corporate taxes, leave the capital gains tax alone, etc… you are crazy.

    We are not in the kind of downturn that will just turn around on its own. That is what Dave is missing here. Obama just can’t ride this out and cruise to reelection.

    The things that are required to happen for us to get out of our economic mess are things that Obama and the Congressional Dems will not do. So let’s see how far President Obama’s charisma gets him going into the 2010 Midterms with 9% unemployment in this country.

  30. MacisBack08 Says:

    “Also, when was the last time three consecutive Presidents won re-election? (hint: it was before the Civil War.”

    Technically, true, but if you think about it, Truman’s 1948 campaign (against Dewey) was kind of a re-election campaign, as he basically had been President for like 90% of FDR’s 4th term.

    FDR– reelected 3 times
    Truman– elected in 1948
    Eisenhower– re-elected in 1956.

  31. Sean P Says:

    Jindal (and even Palin) can afford to wait until 2012. I really don’t think Romney can. If he passes and the Republican nominee wins in 2012, his Presidential ambitions are over. Plus, if he waits until 2016 he would need to keep himself in the public eye somewhow and I’m not sure what he could do. He could run for Teddy’s open seat in 2012, but his chances of winning that election would be entirely dependent on a massive Republican wave (in which case he would want to be the nominee, no?)

  32. Martha M Says:

    Brett – I think Huck got 31% to Romney’s 30% in the south. Help me out here if I’m wrong.

    I can’t believe anyone thinks Huckabee has a serious shot. His appeal was limited entirely to the south, and he would be competing for the same voters as Palin — if she runs.

    I also think he did himself in with the assassinate Obama joke. He became a gaffe machine and I don’t think he can stop, it’s just his nature.

    He’s also a very weak candidate on the economy — likely to still be a huge issue in 2012.

  33. Kavon W. Nikrad Says:

    Jindal (and even Palin) can afford to wait until 2012. I really don’t think Romney can.

    Agreed. Mitt either runs in 2012 or he never runs again. That is why he will run in 2012. You can take that to the bank.

  34. cwpete Says:

    “How would Romney do if he did run?”

    I think most of Romney’s supporters will be there for him at the start and them some. What it took Romney to build after two years of primary campaigning along with tens of millions raised and spent, will all fall in place day one. Add to that 2008 primary base support the other Republicans he’s helped since then by way of his PAC, the respect he has earned from having supported McCain and Palin recently, and the general goodwill Romney won when he exited the 2008 primary race along with appearing as a staunch Republican advocate on the many news shows, I think Romney would start out near the top verses the 2% he started with in 2006.

    We’ll just have to see how Jimmy Carter’s 2nd term comes along. If Iran will go nuclear and if he raise taxes and kills the economy, a Romney as our nominee could be very strong.

  35. MatthewK Says:

    Kristofer – I read the post, though there was nothing new there.

    As for Palin, I view her as incompetent, inexperienced, and a very poor choice for 2012. I also beleive that, though not necessairily her own fault, she is a big reason for our 2008 loss. I was temporarily banned from this site because I criticized Palin as being inexperienced and underqualified. I can’t help but think that my criticism was justified.

    In any case, don’t expect me to go easy on any Republican I view as less than the best option.

    Brett – you don’t get much more Southern than GA, and Romney was basically involved in a three-way split there. I would imagine that Romney could do very well this time around.

  36. MatthewK Says:

    Kavon, any chance of dropping Thune and Crist on the sidebar?

  37. NicholasCottinger Says:

    —“Brett – I think Huck got 31% to Romney’s 30% in the south. Help me out here if I’m wrong.”—

    Romney won a total of ZERO southern states and came in 3rd behind either Huck or McCain in every one except WV where he came in second.

    —He’s also a very weak candidate on the economy — likely to still be a huge issue in 2012.—

    No candidate is weaker on the economy than the founder of a Private Equity firm that liquidated literally thousands of American jobs. That is something that you Romney supporters just can’t get through your heads.

  38. Brett Says:

    Do you think that McCain would come out in support of Romney?

  39. sjm855 Says:

    Carter’s a real good analogy for how Obama could lose re-election (it’s a best case scenario though). Carter was sseen as charismatic in a likable, charming kind of way and his appeal was as an outsider who was honest and could bring people together. Pretty much just like Obama. He was elected to “clean up” the mess left by an unpopular incumbent (Nixon basically), just like Obama. And McCain, like Ford, could not overcome that even while being a credibly honest and likable candidate who was different enough from but couldn’t overcome an unpopular incumbent.
    But Obama, like Carter is going to be inheriting a bad economy that’s more likely to get worse than better over his term and bubbling tensions internationally.
    Obama shows signs of having some of the same flaws as Carter, mostly an indecisiveness, an unwillingness to upset anybody or make tough decisions and a hesitancy to respond when challenged.

    I’m not saying Obama won’t be tough to beat. Incumbents always are, but let’s put this in perspective, he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet! He hasn’t had to make decision one yet! Of course he’s going to be popular and likable. He hasn’t had to shoulder responsibility for anything that would make him otherwise yet.

  40. TarheelRepublican Says:

    I agree with Jason that Obama will be very tough to beat in 2012 barring a blatant screw up on his part, which he’s not prone to do.

    On the other hand Kavon brings up some excellent points in post 29 which I want to believe….so I will :D

    Here’s hoping the general population won’t be sucking the kool aid in 4 years.

  41. sjm855 Says:

    38: McCain would look real bad if he didn’t endorse Palin if she runs. Then again Gore and Kerry similarly turned on their VPs when they ran, but hopefully McCain is more honorable than that.

  42. AC1 Says:

    Jindal has to run for re-election in fall 2011. How can he do that and be in the primary states at the same time?

  43. cwpete Says:

    NicholasCottinger:

    “No candidate is weaker on the economy than the founder of a Private Equity firm that liquidated literally thousands of American jobs.”

    That is simple 100% backwards. Truth of the matter is Romney rescued scores of troubled companies from bankruptcy. He did for business what he did for the Winter Olympics. For sure there were times when tough decisions had to be made which resulted in eliminating some jobs, but if you fairly and honestly evaluate everything Romney did as a whole while running Bain, he created thousands of tax paying jobs. Ever heard of Dominos Pizza or Staples office chain? They both employ tens of thousands and both are here today as a result of what Romney did at Bain.

    Please stop with the disinformation..

  44. AC1 Says:

    41- No one will care what McCain thinks anyway. Palin may want to get away from him politically.

  45. MatthewK Says:

    “Romney won a total of ZERO southern states and came in 3rd behind either Huck or McCain in every one except WV where he came in second.”

    …a result of what we might consider a rather corrupt deal between Huckabee supporters and McCain supporters.

    But, in any case, that was with McCain spliiting the non-diehards with Mitt. In 2012, the split is more likely to be between Palin and Huckabee.

    “No candidate is weaker on the economy than the founder of a Private Equity firm that liquidated literally thousands of American jobs. That is something that you Romney supporters just can’t get through your heads.”

    For every job Romney cut, he saved at least one. You think these companies THAT WERE ALREADY FAILING would have done better if he let them keep a workforce too large for their needs?

    Americas are resigned to the fact that jobs get cut, and a CEO won’t seem so bad if Obama goes in and screws things up. Romney needs to make two arguments:

    1) Job cuts would have been far worse if Romney hadn’t stepped in.
    2) Romney knows why jobs are cut, and, even better, why jobs are created, and what kinds of policies the government can support to get more people back to work.

  46. cwpete Says:

    “Do you think that McCain would come out in support of Romney?”

    Who knows? But I recall McCain once saying of Romney that he represents better my vies that myself (or something along those lines). That was said just after Romney bowed out of the Republican primary race..

  47. AC1 Says:

    43- WE all know you are correct, but does the average swing voter? Romney was in a dead heat with Ted Kennedy in 1994. Then Kennedy brought out all of the layoff stuff and Romney lost by 15 points. People do not understand economics as much as you think they do. My father-in-law would never vote for a person who laid people off, even if it was the right thing to do.

  48. MacisBack08 Says:

    #37… I think Romney can win some of those Southern states this time. He was close in GA. NC wasnt contested. VA was with only Mac and Huck. AR obviously was Huck’s. FL was close for Mitt. If Huck is in the running and gets some momentum, it could be a fight in the South between Mitt and Huck (and Jindal and Palin if they get in). It all depends on how much organization Mitt puts into those states.

    The economic message concerns me with Mitt’s background as a venture capitalist who shipped jobs overseas (unfair charge IMO, but its his perception).

  49. MacisBack08 Says:

    #47, exactly my point.

  50. AC1 Says:

    Obama will have a billion dollars to run ads saying”

    “Romney hates working people. When he was a hearless SOB CEO, he laid off thousands. As President will he lay you off?”

    Then they will cut to someone who he laid off and they will cry how their life was destroyed.

    Fair? NO. Effective? Yes.

  51. MatthewK Says:

    Even if Obama CAN fix some of the things, unemployment will likely hit 7 or 7.5% before we start to climb out of the hole – and that could take us at least to 2012. Even if Obama can reverse the trend, its unlikely that the eocnomic climate will be significantly better than it was during the past year of the Bush administration.

    Getting back to square one isn’t a very good argument to keep Obama in the white house.

  52. cwpete Says:

    I found the <A href= link for what I was taking about in post #46. Here is the money quote:

    “”No one represents me better than Mitt Romney”

  53. MatthewK Says:

    “Fair? NO. Effective? Yes.”

    not if Obama doesn’t do any better….

    see #51, but if Obama can produce SIGNIFICANT improvement, Romney can come in and say “we gave a politician four years to try and fix the economy, now let someone with actual economic experience try”

  54. MWS Says:

    macisback,

    “The economic message concerns me with Mitt’s background as a venture capitalist who shipped jobs overseas (unfair charge IMO, but its his perception).”

    Why would that be a mere “perception?” He either shipped jobs overseas, or he didn’t. Which is it?

  55. Ben Says:

    Martha M wrote (#23): “I can’t believe anyone thinks Huckabee has a serious shot. His appeal was limited entirely to the south, and he would be competing for the same voters as Palin — if she runs.”

    Are you kidding? I could barley get into his speech at Brown University in the most liberal state in America (Rhode Island). They had to turn away hundreds of people and students….America has grown more familiar with Huckabee and I he’s not seen as scary even up here in the liberal northeast.

  56. MWS Says:

    Ben,

    Indeed. Huckabee was mired around 1-2% until August of ’07, and didn’t really start cracking double digits until maybe October or November. For someone to suggest that he doesn’t have a serious shot is just the wishful fantasy of an opponent.

    After all that happened this cycle, NOBODY should say than anyone doesn’t have a shot.

    …. well, except maybe Lyndon LaRouche.

  57. cwpete Says:

    #47 & #49:

    I think if people understand that when companies are in bankruptcy, serious changes need to be made – including layoffs. Any blame for those job losses should be laid upon the former Board of Directors and CEO’s who run the company in the ground, not the fix guy Bain – Romney in this case.

    Also, I think that if people understand that a candidate has a long successful track record of rescuing both businesses in the private sector along with budgets in the gov’t (MA budget & SLC Winter Olympics) they’ll be inclined to support that candidate in the general election. That will be even more true given an economic crisis.

    The same old class-warfare rhetoric won’t apply. It will take someone smart to fix the mess. The smart person will have a long record of being successful. The smart / successful person will most likely not be a poor candidate as a result of having been successful in the past.

  58. Ben Says:

    Also, when was the last time a Republican won the liberal states up in the northeast (like Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire….) anyway. I thought that that was what McCain was supposed to do, and he didn’t.

    The conservative base is in the south, that’s why Huckabee did so well. But Ronald Reagan, as conservative if not more then Huckabee, won the north eastern states (at least in his reelection bid). Huckabee is the best communicator the Republicans have, and as we’ve seen with Obama, communication means a lot (think red states turning blue). We picked McCain mailing because of electability not principle, we can’t make the same mistake in 2012.

  59. Nate G. Says:

    #37 NicholasCottinger –

    I am only going to reiterate what MatthewK said in #45. Of course Romney cut jobs when he went in to take over failing businesses. If you don’t them go then whole company goes under making ALL of the employees un-employeed. When are you going to get that through YOUR head. Business HAS to be profitable, when it’s not you need to correct course or go down with the ship.

    Also have you ever thought of the fact that Romney has created far more jobs than he ever “liquidated” as you said? Ever heard of Staples? Dominoes? Sealy? Brookstone? Those are a few of hundreds of companies he helped start. Do you know how many thousands of employees those companies have?

    Try taking Econ 101 if you haven’t already. You’ll find that your logic of job protectionism is completely backwards. Protectionism leads to lost jobs and weaker economy.

  60. Nate G. Says:

    Sorry, I realize I said the same things cwpete said in #43 as well. Sorry didn’t see that one as I was scanning through.

  61. Alex Knepper Says:

    I will bet you all $5,459,891,058,281 that Romney ends up running.

  62. Alex Knepper Says:

    Agreed. Mitt either runs in 2012 or he never runs again. That is why he will run in 2012. You can take that to the bank.

    Yup.

  63. AC1 Says:

    60- You are right but does Joe Blow in Scranton who has never had an Econ 101 class understand?

    I just heard on SNF that Palin is going to be on the Today Show Tuesday.

  64. Brett Passmore Says:

    Alex,
    I havent been around much lately, but it sure is good to see you around again.

  65. cwpete Says:

    No worries Nate #60, you did a fine job explaining economics 101. Apparently, there are many that don’t understand that. Is it any wonder why Americans hold so much debt?

  66. Nate G. Says:

    58- Ben,

    Bill Clinton was a good communicator as well.

    I agree the leader of our party should be a good communicator, but even more so I prefer that they are right on the issues. And in that of course, we will differ in who on who is in the right (Huck or Rom). In my mind I think Romney is a great communicator as well. One of the most common adjective used to describe his answers in debates was articulate. When someone is articulate they can convey a lot of meaning or understanding though the use of few words.

    I do agree with you on selecting someone for principle. That’s why I won’t be supporting Huckabee in 2011.

  67. Nate G. Says:

    63- Do we bend to false principles because the people don’t understand? NO. If we do that than our only options we’ll have in the general will be two candidates that are both wrong. Screwed either way. Instead we should work and campaign as hard as we can to educate them and put our best candidate forward who understand what should be done. You’re never going to be able to educate the whole public, but we can change just a few in a hundred voters and that is all we need to sway things our way.

  68. Brett Passmore Says:

    If Romney is the nominee, I would be supporting him as much as I will be supporting a potential Huckabee primary campaign for the nominee….

  69. Alex Knepper Says:

    I havent been around much lately, but it sure is good to see you around again.

    Good to be back, Brett!

  70. Sean M Says:

    I do believe Romney has the largest Facebook group dedicated to him running in 2012: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8331196519

  71. Nate G. Says:

    #68 I wish everyone could make the same resolution, but I think there are some Romney supporters and also members of HA that just will never go for that.

  72. varda Says:

    Romney might run when he’s 65 if Obama is not doing well. Unlikely to see him run at age 69.

  73. BarkTwiggs Says:

    72,
    I think it has less to do with age and more with timing. 8 years from now, Jindal’s star will be burning brightly and who knows who else may show up next. Romney is in the the obvious next in line pole position now for 2012. If for some reason he doesn’t compete in 2012, he could pull off 2016 but there are too many variables unaccounted for between now and then.

  74. james doaks Says:

    dont underestimate huckabee. he is a very politician , and he plays the media / populism game well. he will do well. but he is also the worst possible thing that could happen to GOP. fear huck.

  75. Bill C. Says:

    Jindal/Romney vs. Obama/Biden. I would love to see that.

  76. Brett Passmore Says:

    71 – I know, but I will do what I can to sway that crowd at HA/ F3/ independents.

  77. Texasconserv Says:

    The republican party needs to reach out to African Americans and Hispanics. I just do not see how over the next 4 years that Romney will be able to do that. Huckabee got 48% of the AA vote in his state and he continues to reach out and ask what the needs are of that group. He also had Tito the builder on his show, talking about conservative issues that Hispanics believe in.

    Newt Gingrich will also be in the mix for 2012, as I have recieved a call everyday from his American Solutions group asking about the bailout and supporting Gingrich’s plan.

  78. DSkinner Says:

    Romney will run even if it looks like he would be a sacrificial lamb. He would go out and basically try to do his impersonation of Goldwater.

    Also, when he will have to make the decision whether or not to run the economy will absolutely, 100% still be in the dump. Two years from now, even with great economic leadership (the exact opposite of what Obama wants to do) the economy would be barely coming out of a recession.

  79. Aron Goldman Says:

    Romney: Obama must be ‘educator-in-chief’
    Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney offers his advice to Barack Obama, and his views on labor unions, federal bailouts, Detroit, protectionism, and America’s debts.

  80. wateredseeds Says:

    Someone asked how Jindal can run a primary campaign for president and win the governorship? He won’t have to. For governor, he will win his 2011 campaign without spending $1. If he is still doing right by Louisiana, than he’ll win 80% of the vote without trying. If they really like what he’s doing, than they will support his run for the presidency.

    Personally, I don’t see Romney running. He will most likely back another candidate and hope for the VP spot. Why? Because his family won’t let him.

    With Gingrich running the RNC and Jindal kicking a** down south for the next few years, I don’t see anyone taking the nomination away from the straightforward Jindal. He’s an excellent communicator that doesn’t rely on charisma. He can bore you to death, and you’ll still love listening to him.

    Mark it now, Jindal will be the frontrunner when we get to 2011. Palin will stay out of it. Huckabee can’t beat Jindal. Jindal is more conservative and from the south. Also, he is a current governor.

    By the way. Mitt can’t win the south in a primary. You are deluted if you think he can. They see him as a northeastern economic conservative. That means they just plain don’t trust him. His conversion on social issues isn’t enough. It wasn’t in 2008 and it won’t be in 2012. Really I hope Huckabee, Romney and Palin stay out of it. I’d love to see a race between Jindal and Cantor. That would be awesome. Get to pick between two hardcore conservatives that can win it with intelligence rather than charisma.

  81. JimKirk Says:

    Romney is a snake oil carpetbagger. The democrats like Emanuel could make mincemeat out of his record with offshore tax havens, leveraged buyouts, Pro=Waterboarding and Pro-Guantanimo; He has PERMANENTLY lost the Latino vote. Palin needs to take an M.A. in International Relations. She must. Huckabee is talented, but he too needs some foreign policy experience. I just don’t think Jindal is a Leader – he doesn’t seem to have the Royal Jelly. He’s thinner than Jack Spratt. I think they need a Huckabee or a Portman kind of man. Someone with Integrity and Leadership presence. If Huckabee or Sarah Palin could flesh out their foreign policy experience with some degrees or work and visits overseas, then they would be far stronger than now.

  82. Heath Says:

    He running, he’s winning and he’ll win easily. America needs Mitt (they just don’t know it yet :)).

  83. Heath Says:

    Get real I reckon Romney’s family was more into the race than he was. He will just get them all around for Xmas or Thanksgiving and go around the family asking for their opinions again like last time.

    Unless Ann’s MS plays up badly he is a 99% chance to run. If you think about it seriously there’s no-one else who could possibly beat him for the nomination is there.

  84. Heath Says:

    I like Cantor and Ryan but they are actually not that smart if you actually listen to them for more than 2 minutes.

    Jindal and Rommey are the smartest by 1000000 miles.

  85. Thomas Alan Says:

    Agreed. Unless Ann Romney has a relapse, Romney will run. Jason’s quotes are just typical political coyness. Why would the “family” be holding him back anyway. Near as I can tell they were all gung-ho.

    In other news, over at the Corner Romney was not interested in the RNC job.

  86. TonyK Says:

    #1,2,3
    I agree Romney for the current choice
    although my favourite is Condy Rice, she is smart, full of experiences in foreign affairs, high education, charming, and PRETTY.

    if Republican nominee Condy as predident candidacy 2012,major voters from black and colour for Obama will go to her.
    also women voters.

    thanks

  87. MatthewK Says:

    “By the way. Mitt can’t win the south in a primary. You are deluted if you think he can.”

    Like I said, you don’t get much more southern than Georgia, and Romney was in was amounted to an even three-way split there during the primary – and that was when thee entire “hard right” as we’ll call it was voting for Huckabee. You put Palin in the mix, or another southern conservative like Sanford or Bush, and its very easy to see a split field handing Romney wins in the south.

    “In other news, over at the Corner Romney was not interested in the RNC job.”

    Good. It would have been a waste of his talents as a policy pro and strong executive.

    As for Condi – we absolutely CANNOT HAVE a pro-choice nominee in 2012. Obama’s ability to change the SCOTUS this term is minimal, since he will likely only be able to replace the most liberal judges.

    But in four years, that is when we could actually give us the fifth vote we need to swing the court.

  88. Shawnie Says:

    As a former AVID Romney fan, I don’t want him to run in 2012 unless our party steps away from the hard-core SoCons and the H.R.I’s – otherwise he is a sacrificial lamb.

  89. Jason Bonham Says:

    88. Shawnie, I think you make a great point.

    I am not sure under what circumstances it goes from sacrificial lamb to real shot, and at what point we really know. It maybe something we don’t know until it’s too late for one to get in or out.

    I am guessing that most of Mitt’s work (should he run) will be done behind the scenes and that he won’t make anything obvious to the oublic till well after midterms. It’s the smartest scenario for him. That way he has not locked himself into anything and he remains open to future runs.

  90. Ben Says:

    #81: “Huckabee is talented, but he too needs some foreign policy experience.”

    Unless something changes, like a major terrorist attack within the next four years, foreign policy will not be a major issue. In the end, it was not an issue with Obama (even though we had polar opposites on this issue) and it won’t be with other candidates in 2012. It seems that the public is willing to rely on advisers or vice presidents (Chaney, Biden) to carry the foreign policy judgment in an administration.

    Also, the last person to attack a candidate for lack of foreign policy experience would be Obama.

  91. Illinoisguy Says:

    I believe Mitt will run. And as of right now, I think he has the best chance to win it. If Huckabee and either Palin or Jindal run, then I think Mitt will be fine, because the others will split the so-con vote. Mitt will still get his share of their vote. I believe that the Huckabee people should have learned that when it came to a two man race, he had very little support, outside of the south. He just doesn’t play anywhere else. Most of his followers will now recognize that, and will not try to ride the same horse again.

    Another possibility is for Mitt to run for Governor of Michigan, but if he takes that route it will be with the intention to not run for PRes again, or to do so as a 69 years old. Mitt is in super shape, and I don’t think it would be a problem for him to run at 69. The only thing I have a problem with if he takes that path is that we lose him as a candidate for 2012, and I hate to do that. I have nothing against Bobby Jindal, and I like Sarah Palin, but my own gut feel of it is that they would not be able to beat Obama.

  92. Jason Bonham Says:

    91. Theoretically, he could run in 2020, he basically be the same age as McCain at that point.

  93. Greg Says:

    #81, are you serious about needing a Huckabee, someone with integrity? Isn’t this the guy who let murderers and rapists free and refused to speak with the families of victims about it? Isn’t this the guy who said he had made a negative ad about Romney and said his conscience told him not to release it, and then he took 20 minutes to get it up and running to show it to the hundreds of reporters who were present? Isn’t this the guy who took a swipe at Mormon theology in a national interview before Romney had ever issued one compare-contrast ad? Integrity? Maybe that is integrity in Arkansas, but not in the rest of the country. He is unelectable because he can’t win independent votes. Same with Palin.

    What is going to happen is that we are going to get an unelectable candidate because Huckabee and/or Palin are going to try to run, and they will take their SoCon base. Unless we move a little more towards the center, we cannot get independents.

    WITHOUT THE INDEPEDENTS, WE CANNOT WIN. PERIOD.

  94. asparagus Says:

    His best bet is to become Gov of California in 2010 and run in 2016, and comparisons to Reagan will sweep him to the nomination.

  95. wateredseeds Says:

    We didn’t lose independants because we’re “not in the center”. We lost independants because they saw Obama as being more for “them”. When republicans talk tax cuts, why does the rhetoric always have to contain millionaires? Tax cuts should happen from the bottom up. Late in the campaign Obama changed his rhetoric to sound like Bill Clinton. When the public finds out he isn’t Bill Clinton, any republican will be able to beat him in 2012. But this will be the time for the next Reagan to step up. Will it be Romney or will it be Jindal? I don’t see Palin, Jindal and Huckabee all running. Not to mention that the theory they would split the south is bunk. Whoever wins Iowa will boost in the south. My money is on Jindal. If he wins Iowa, then Huckabee will endorse him. If Newt doesn’t become RNC chair he will endorse him as well. What was someone saying about Georgia? Newt is going to hand Georgia to Jindal. Game over.

  96. Ben Says:

    #93: “Unless we move a little more towards the center, we cannot get independents.”

    The theory of moving away from conservatism and into the center has failed miserably….Republicans acting like moderates or democrats don’t win. Look at Bob Dole or even John McCain. Did McCain get all those moderates that he was supposed to? No (Bush even came closer in Penn), because voters would rather have the real thing, then have a watered down candidate.

    In his book, [i]”Primary Mistake: How the Republican Establishment Lost Everything in 2006 (and Sabotaged My Senatorial Campaign)” Steve Laffey (ran against Lincoln Chaffey in 2006 primary)[/i], wrote about the theory of moderation:

    “The press uses the word “moderate” like it’s a magical token and mumbles the word “conservative” like it’s a four letter word, but Republicans never did better than when they were proud of who they were, and never did worse than when they pretended to be something they weren’t. When Reagan was questioned by reporters about statements claiming he was too extreme, he responded, according to Shirley, unabashedly : “I think moderation should be taken in moderation…..[b]When your on the operating table, you hope your doctor has more than just moderate skills. Let’s put what we and our party believe on our banner and not water it down.[b]”

    [b]Moderation is a sign that power is more important than principle[/b], that’s when candidates lose. The latest major candidate that lost because of moderation are Elizabeth Dole and John McCain.

  97. Greg Says:

    Times have changed.

  98. Raj Says:

    That was the most laughable moment in the primaries, when Huckabee took 20 minutes to get through the technical difficulties to show the attack ad that he felt he should not show. Everyone was laughing at him, not with him. Never had a candidate looked like such an amateur.

  99. copp Says:

    Mitt’ll run if the country wants him to. After 3 years of Obama Romney (more than anyone) will LOOK like the antidote – in all respects. The country must be totally ready to give the job to a Dudley Dooright. He will do it – if it’s easy almost a given. Otherwise, he won’t bother knocking himself out. This time around he introduced himself as a potential candidate. Next time, he’ll run only if he is almost a shoe-in. I believe Obama will have earned the disgust of the country and Romney will ride in on a white horse. If that’s not the situation, Romney WILL NOT RUN>

  100. copp Says:

    Romney will have little Republican competition even if Obama is universally loathed. Why? Because he will be loathed because he’s a FLAKE. Romney is the ANTI-FLAKE. No one else in the party will match his staure in 2012. He’s already playing hard to get now because he’s seeing it like me. He waiting to be almost DRAFTED. That’s the rare window he seeks. He may actually get it. But if not, he’s history.

  101. copp Says:

    Romney will run as the definition of Conservative. Obama finds our Costitution flawed – because it doesn’t counenance “redistribution of wealth”. He also seems to not like free speech – talk radio. He wants to start a mandatory youth core and a civil defense Corp. that kind of crap is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Individual liberty and Constitutional principals – the ery definition of what makes America unique is going to be placed up for grabs. These are the highest stakes imaginable. “Conservatism” is going to be all the Rage. Constitutionalism will be very popular! And gay marriage will be yet another manifestation of the coming focus on Constitutional Issues. Core issues and values. Romney’s already there, folks. That is his baliwick. He set himself up as a possible President this year. Next time he’ll have his chance to take it. Maybe. Probably.

    Palin. Jindal. Newt. Huck. No. This was the year to give the untested a try. This was the year of the gamble – the flake. Next time the country’s going to want to sober up. See you all in 3 years.

  102. Sean P Says:

    “If you fairly and honestly evaluate everything Romney did as a whole while running Bain, he created thousands of tax paying jobs.”

    Well, since the Obama campaign was well known for fairly and honestly evaluating his opponent’s record, I guess we have nothing to worry about then, huh? :)

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main