Is Mitt running for president again?

Nixon, Bush I and Reagan all lost national elections or primaries before winning, but I don't think that's possible anymore, at least not for the republicans. I think Hillary is an exception, and may be the last exception since she's such an overwhelming favorite to win the nomination.

I'm all for, "You had your shot, not we're moving on to someone else." I'm stunned Romney and Huckabee think they have a chance.

 

If the GOP thinks the Democrats are in shambles and they want a nice, safe candidate who will probably get all the votes from the previous election plus probably just enough to win, then Romney is a decent choice.

If they think the Democrats have a strong candidate, then I would not send Romney back out.

The general public has seen all of Mitt's possible screw ups, outside of the tax forms which will probably never see the light of day, so he's safe. You know what you are getting with him, and he's not that polarizing. Some of their other choices could make people jump ship away from the GOP, and that could cost them 2016.

I'd send him out against Hillary. I think he could win. I honestly do.

 

I forget. What number presidents were they?

 

Again, I'm just talking about the national election. If a candidate never made it out of the primaries, that shouldn't be a dealbreaker, and it never has been.

 

Hillary will trip up at some point. She's riding this wave right now that will inevitably crash shortly after she declares that she's running. By no means does that mean she won't win the nomination and possibly the presidency, but right now, if you look at the polls, you would think she's going to be handed the nomination on a silver platter.

I can't imagine any scenario when Romney wins the presidency. He may be safer than some of the others mentioned, but he will excite nobody.

 

Certainly not Republicans.

 

I don't normally watch Fox news shows but I woke up in D.C. on Sunday morning and flipped on the TV and surfed a bit and landed on Fox News Sunday and watched a bit. Long story short, this question came up and each of the panel members explained why it's a good or bad idea for him to run, again. They get to George Will (I know, I know) and he delivered a rather spot-on answer: The GOP pretty much controls the game right now with 31 governors (7 of the 10 largest states) and control of both chambers and have this red advantage and that one -- and right now the Republican party has, perhaps, its strongest pool of presidential candidates since 1856 ... and so why in the world would the party want to "look backwards" yet again to a guy who doesn't have the sway that he thinks he does?

Will On Mitt: GOP Has Deep Bench, No Need To Look Backwards | The Daily Caller

 

The 2012 GOP debates made for the most entertaining television there was. I can't wait for more. If there's a God, Ted Cruz will run.

 

Presidential elections should be like the Baseball Hall of Fame -- once you've been on the ballot for a set number of years, or primaries in this case, you are eliminated from future consideration.

 

Yes! I'm still eligible!

 

Grover Cleveland then

 

"...once you've been on the ballot for a set number of years, or primaries in this case, you are eliminated."

Fixed that for you a bit. Removal from the gene pool might be better.