Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Mitt Again?
On Politico at this hour:
The day after Mitt Romney opened the door to another possible presidential run, a new poll shows he has a huge lead among likely 2016 Iowa Republican caucus voters.
Further:
According to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday, 35 percent of likely GOP caucus voters would vote for the 2012 GOP nominee in 2016. When Romney’s name was added to the pool, no other candidate received double-digit votes.
The survey comes as rumors have begun to swirl about a potential Romney bid for president in 2016. After months of insisting that he will not run again, the former Massachusetts governor on Tuesday acknowledged that “circumstances can change.”
Well, good people of Ricochet? In a field including, let us say, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush, where would you rank Mitt Romney?
Published in General
The Republican primary voters would have to be morons (or Democrats trying to sandbag us) to pick Romney. In 2012 Romney went after the GOP nomination with an admirable ruthlessness and steely-eyed determination – then lost his nerve and his will in the general.
It wasn’t all too difficult to go against the ridiculous lineup of candidates the GOP put forth in 2012.
There are 2 different audiences in the primary election and in the general election. In the general election you’re targeting “moderates” and “independents”. Not so in the primaries.
The Man of The Hour. The Rescuer. Because the American electorate has failed to take personal responsibility on any level.
And that is a sorry commentary on the electorate and I’m now inspired to do what I have to do to protect my assets from thieves.
Romney would make a great Secretary of State. I just don’t see any way he wins a national election with his personality. Not enough flash.
Amen! Not that I am a Romney booster, but rather that we are more than two years away from the next presidential election. A lot can happen between then and now. Plus we still have the 2014 election to mess up before we start thinking about how to lose the 2016.
You obviously don’t own any property or portfolio if you’re concerned about personality.
The problem is that he isn’t *given* the job. He has to win it. And he has failed to. Twice. He also failed in his Senate campaign. When it comes to convincing people to vote for him, he’s a repeated loser with one fluke win under his belt.
Maybe you’re right, that the problem is the electorate. But you win an election with the electorate you have, not the electorate you want.
Given all that, I would much rather see someone like Scott Walker who is both a fighter and an election *winner* as our candidate. Now, I’d like him to make Romney SecTreas or another important role in the cabinet, but Romney at the top of the ticket is a proven loser.
I would have said, Sec of Treasury. But I think Mitt should be a suitable Sec of State. I think it was Glenn Reynolds who joked that Mitts foreign policy predictions during the 2010 campaign were so accurate that it made Mitt appear to have psychic superpowers.
Even William Jennings Bryan would tell Mitt to give it up. He’s just not electable. He can raise a ton of money but he can’t connect with the electorate.
If he’s the nominee, I’ll support him. I think he’d be a good president.
But as a candidate, I have no reason to believe he’s ready to fight. Plus the media will never let him live down the 47% remark, giving some guy’s wife fatal cancer, or Seamus tied to the roof of the car and he has given no evidence he has a clue how to take that nonsense off the table.
Interesting choice though. Hillary reminds men of their first wife, and Romney reminds us of the guy who fired us because he was restructuring the business.
I’m so depressed looking at the Republican bench that I would strongly consider giving Romney a second chance. Running against Leona Helmsley would be alot different than running against our first Black President, and the I-told-you-so factor, though it could never be verbalized, would be strongly in his favor. As of now I’m still willing to give Scott Walker a hearing, but Mitt could be a strong backup.
Nonsense; I’d look forward to the damage the GOP could create with a real Boogie Man in charge.
I think the world of Romney, but after two election cycles I’m concerned that he lacks the warrior instinct required to horsewhip the Clinton machine throughout the latter half of 2016 and then tackle the likes of Putin once in office. He has a firm grip on the nature of the problems we face, but what makes a president is his (or her) capacity to galvanize the populace.
We don’t need a caretaker or a great manager; we need a human zamboni to repave reality, Pax Americana style.
I’d like to explore this a little more. You really think the primarily qualifications for president are net wealth and family life?
In which case, do you also hold that Bill Gates (multibillionaire, Roman Catholic, never divorced) would automatically be a better president than Calvin Coolidge, one of the few presidents with a net worth under a million dollars?
@EThompson – Take a chill pill or three. Romney is a good dude with low mass appeal. just my opinion. No need to get personal.
Mitt Romney is a job and business creator who fully understands the impetuses to a capitalist economy as well as China’s currency manipulation.
This is complicated stuff. And it certainly affects national security.
Let the states and cities take care of the social issues.
I can’t afford to take a chill pill; I have too much to protect.
Nothing personal against Mitt, but if he’s the nominee I’ll be heading to the links rather than to the polls that day. Ditto Jeb or Chris.
And yet…he didn’t. So maybe what’s obvious isn’t so obvious.
And we can count on America’s corrupt media to tell that to the electorate…right?
That’s exactly where I’d place Romney. I might fiddle with the order of the top three some.
The “loser” moniker was attributed solely to Romney the “presidential candidate,” not Romney the “businessman” nor Romney the “family man.” In that regard, he is a loser, despite his being a great guy (or maybe because of it?) in all other facets of his life.
That didn’t answer my question. Do you think that having successfully run a company as a CEO (as defined by making millions of dollars) better qualifies one to be president than having experience doing anything else, say running a guild (Ronald Reagan) or being a successful governor (Scot Walker, as defined as actually managing to pass conservative legislation and get reelected in a blue state) or even being a general (Dwight Eisenhower)?
Because if it’s just a matter of having made money as CEO, then Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Michael Bloomberg or Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg are just as, if not more so, qualified than Mitt Romney. $250M is chump change to those guys, after all.
Um, No. Last time around, HE LOST! Of course he looks good now. Anyone would compared to Obama. Mitt lacks the Eye of the Tiger for a general election fight. He seems like a solid guy with a good managerial style. Which is fine, AFTER YOU WIN THE JOB! Can we try someone with someone with some fire in the belly and some ballsy talk? I am liking Perry more. I like Walker and Jindal for proven track records, but they’re not very exciting front runners. No to Jeb and Christie for being too liberal. I like Cruz, but no to a congressman in general. Need someone who can show they can manage something.
I’d like to see a Romney/Perry or Perry/Romney ticket. Romney was quite possibly the best potential president ever to have been defeated, although as a campaigner he should have emphasised much more how a Republican administration would help the less well-off by reducing the size of government.
Perry is plenty smart enough to be president: one does not need to be a rocket scientist, provided one has common sense, sound principles, good advisors and a solid work ethic.
Let me correct you: Romney was not a CEO of one specific business as was Gates. Romney is different because he helped provide the funding and the financial planning for a multitude of businesses: Domino’s, Burger King, Burlington, Sealy, Staples, et al.
I have enormous respect for his diversity of knowledge; this makes him a particularly unique candidate and I have yet to mention the Salt Lake City Olympics.
I heard Mitt’s interview with Hugh Hewitt that broke this “news.” Let me tell ya’, I was unimpressed. Romney spent the first five minutes talking about how the GOP has to win over Latino voters. /double face-palm, head on desk, drooling over the faux wood-grain…
What a tired and tiresome approach. As if divide-and-conquer has worked so well for Republicans… It’s a Democrat strategy for pity’s sake! It was the same deal with him in 2012 except he focused on the entrepreneurial class (or the “middle class” (a term I would banish from political speech), blah, blah, blah). The country is starving for a leader for everyone! Everyone!!
Why is capitalism good for everyone?! Especially the poor! C’mon guys. We’ve got to do better than this. He’s a lovely man. He’s just not what the country needs right now. We need someone inspirational with aspirations of slashing government.
And, btw, Perry’s political instincts are probably a gazillion times better, but he was unimpressive when interviewed by Brit Hume on the border crisis. He’s glacially slow on issues he should know reflexively.
Nothing about the field excites me.
Mitt Again? No, Mittigate
Please, no. No. More. Mitt.