Mitt Romney just announced he isn't going to run in 2016. Not particularly surprised and didn't think he would have much of a shot at it. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ent-again-in-2016/ar-AA8M4tR?ocid=mailsignout
No surprise. He already lost once (not that it would prevent him from running and winning, but it does carry a stigma. Plus some of his people already switched to Bush. The wingnuts will push for their for their favorites (Palin, Cruz, Paul) and there may be a brief flurry of more interesting candidates but Bush is the nominee.
I was just hearing somewhere that he was leading the list of likely GOP candidates. Which probably has something to do with it being way too early to be testing these things. Maybe he started hearing people talk about him again and wanted to nip it in the bud. Anyway, I feel relatively certain that the Republican candidate we end up with is going to be less palatable to me than Romney would have been. Oh well.
He was the one that said he was interested in running several weeks ago. The reaction he got was wretched. Major columnists and donors saying he's crazy, begging him not to run, etc. I assume that's what led him to re-evaluate - he had his network, but he wasn't going to get the establishment support that he got last time. Besides, he was a terrible matchup against Hillary. All his strengths (experience, competence, etc) and his weaknesses (out of touch, aloof, fake) match up exactly with Hillary. The GOP needs someone that people actually want to like to counter Hillary, and he wasn't that guy.
This is a good move by Romney -- he would have been a great President, but the American public makes decisions based upon celebrity and popularity, not on executive competence. Romney struggled with certain bases (evangelicals, poor, minorities), whereas Bush can do much better with these groups. Hillary has absolutely no credentials to be President. She has no private sector accomplishments and she was a train wreck as Secretary of State. Her signature issue as First Lady did not get accomplished. Expect her to run a "female power" campaign as a result and make it about men vs women, just as Obama made it about race (black/brown vs white). It's the lowest form of politics, and it's divisive, but it's what works.
no need to recreate the other thread Yup a black guy beat the GOP and now a woman is going to beat the GOP Transexual midget 2020!
Go to Utah, become a Senator and/or try again. People might eventually tire enough of the culture wars that non-partisan competence becomes and asset, and both Dems and GOP will have a hard time branding that.
He never would have had a chance, much like if Hillary runs. Honestly I think they just throw out a bunch of names of potential candidates super early so that the other party can waste their breath beating up on someone not really running.
Never fear. Palin and Trump might still run as they were in the recent conservative confab in Iowa for potential candidates. I am not sure about the charming pizza baron, Herman Caine. He had a good singing voice. Haven't heard whether he is running again
Caine is passe... Ben Carson was new and shiny but seems to have peaked early. Besides, it seems that this campaign will be all about gender... so look for Susanna Martinez to gain steam...
too bad i was really wanting everyone in America to learn about the golden plates. you are all joseph smith fans and you dont even realize it
I agree with your first paragraph, Romney would be a decent President (great?probably nobody can predict that). He had the experience of running large organisations (Bain Capital and Mass), clearly a very intelligent man, and I would've expected him to move closer to the center once in power, with the occasional policy to appease the far right. He just wasn't popular enough in his personality. Your second paragraph, uhh, never mind.
Once again, Jorge, nobody gives a flying **** about your prognostication non-abilities. Orlando Sanchez to the white house! *snicker*
