Will Mitt Run in 2016?

He says he won't. His wife recently said he won't, but previously had been saying he might?

What do you think?

He will. I know this.



It's already in motion, but to overcome the stigma of being a 2x loser, it has to look like he enters reluctantly. Jeb will throw his support behind Mitt immediately after Mitt makes it official, and the "establishment" will line up behind Mitt. They're already streamlining the primary and debate process to eliminate the Ted Cruz/Rick Santorums at the earliest possible stage to turn the attention and $ on the Dem nominee.

Personally, I believe it's about a 60% chance Mitt Romney will run for president. And, I predict he will win.

snoscythe wrote:
He will. I know this.



It's already in motion, but to overcome the stigma of being a 2x loser, it has to look like he enters reluctantly. Jeb will throw his support behind Mitt immediately after Mitt makes it official, and the "establishment" will line up behind Mitt. They're already streamlining the primary and debate process to eliminate the Ted Cruz/Rick Santorums at the earliest possible stage to turn the attention and $ on the Dem nominee.

That would be wise. The endless debates from the last GOP presidential primary cycle seemed like suicide with paper cuts.

I'm not sure he'll run, but if he doesn't I'd like to see him as head of the RNC.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Ddawg wrote:

He will. I know this.



It's already in motion, but to overcome the stigma of being a 2x loser, it has to look like he enters reluctantly. Jeb will throw his support behind Mitt immediately after Mitt makes it official, and the "establishment" will line up behind Mitt. They're already streamlining the primary and debate process to eliminate the Ted Cruz/Rick Santorums at the earliest possible stage to turn the attention and $ on the Dem nominee.

That would be wise. The endless debates from the last GOP presidential primary cycle seemed like suicide with paper cuts.

Well, Mitt won't win Iowa unless Cruz, Santorum and Paul are splitting the votes. I think even with those three Mitt loses Iowa by a lot to Cruz if he runs. New Hampshire isn't a sure bet against Rand Paul. And Mitt won't win South Carolina. Nevada may be his first win and it won't be enough it it is. It will be a slog no matter what.



And the election wasn't lost during the primaries it was lost because republicans didn't like Mitt enough to get out and campaign for him. Not sure if fighting Hillary Clinton will be enough to get people off their butts.

I'm pretty sure he'd beat Cruz, Santorum and Paul in Iowa. Probably win in NH too.

Here's the schedule for now

Iowa

NH

SC

NC

ME

CO/MN

Nevada

Michigan

AK/FL/WY/ID/MA/GA/ND/OK/TN/TX/VA/VT



Nobody will beat Cruz in Iowa if he runs. And Mitt lost to Santorum, that's right Santorum last time in Iowa. Even Huckabee would beat Mitt there.



NH better be a given. He's bribed, er contributed to, every legislator in the state starting from the smallest municipality. If he doesn't win NH (and win by double digits) Mitt's done. I assume he can buy his way through Nevada as well. Then he has to win FL which I think he can buy as well.



Mitt will then lose both SC and NC. If Paul is still in the race by then Maine and Minnesota will be contested. If he isn't Romney has a chance to take 5 state in a row before super Tuesday which is his only chance. And in at least four states on super Tuesday he doesn't have a prayer (Texas, ND, OK or TN and you can probably add GA to the list as well).

well, that settles it... :roll:



http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/21/Exclusive-Donald-Trump-To-Mitt-Romney-You-Blew-It-In-2012-Don-t-Even-Think-About-Running-Again" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jvquarterback wrote:
And Mitt lost to Santorum, that's right Santorum last time in Iowa. Even Huckabee would beat Mitt there.

The ONLY reason Mitt didn't win Iowa is because the Iowa voters wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Iowa was searching to give the win in their caucuses to anyone BUT the Mormon.



And Santorum won Iowa over Romney by all of 34 votes. Santorum got 29,839 votes and Romney 29,805.



Iowa was looking for anyone else. Michele Bachmann won the first straw poll in Aug 2011. Then Ron Paul was leading in Iowa. Then New Gingrich was ahead. Then Rick Perry and Herman Cain all took a turn leading Iowa polls. Iowans were looking for non-Mormons.



Romney was by far the best GOP candidate and the best presidential candidate the party has run since Reagan in 1984.



But Iowa came aroudn, to a certain extent. In 2008, McCain got 682,379 votes in Iowa good for 44.39%. Romney won 730,617 votes for 46.18%. Obama got 828,940 (53.93%) and 822,544 (51.99%) respectively.



Romeny should have done better nationwide and really should have defeated Obama.



But Romney and his team did a VERY poor job of attacking Obama, of exposing his record and of standing for something.



If HE can actually go after the Democrats and stand for liberty and freedom, he might win. But if he listens to the current crop of GOP advisers again, where all you do is NOT be a Democrat, he'd lose again.

jvquarterback wrote:

And Mitt ....... He's bribed, er contributed to, every legislator in the state starting from the smallest municipality.

Actually - that's a jaw dropping accusation. It would be interesting to see the documentation, charges, on-going investigations, to back up such a serious charge.

Ddawg wrote:

And Mitt ....... He's bribed, er contributed to, every legislator in the state starting from the smallest municipality.

Actually - that's a jaw dropping accusation. It would be interesting to see the documentation, charges, on-going investigations, to back up such a serious charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/us/politics/mitt-romney-campaigns-tirelessly-and-not-just-for-himself.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Just about every republican candidate in nh got money from Romney or his PAC.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:

And Mitt ....... He's bribed, er contributed to, every legislator in the state starting from the smallest municipality.

Actually - that's a jaw dropping accusation. It would be interesting to see the documentation, charges, on-going investigations, to back up such a serious charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/us/politics/mitt-romney-campaigns-tirelessly-and-not-just-for-himself.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Just about every republican candidate in nh got money from Romney or his PAC.

So...That's what PAC's do.



You can say that about any Political Action Committee. I've worked for a company that donated to EVERY candidate in any state they had operations.



So if you feel that PAC's are just bribe money, then sure, you're claim is valid. You'd have to say the exact same thing about the PAC's set up by Obama, Reid, Soros, etc.

Romney is the only one campaigning in NH - he's still donating to all the candidates. What I'm saying is that if he doesn't win in NH by double digits I don't think he'll win anywhere else.

stuckinbig10country wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

And Mitt ....... He's bribed, er contributed to, every legislator in the state starting from the smallest municipality.

Actually - that's a jaw dropping accusation. It would be interesting to see the documentation, charges, on-going investigations, to back up such a serious charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/us/politics/mitt-romney-campaigns-tirelessly-and-not-just-for-himself.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Just about every republican candidate in nh got money from Romney or his PAC.

So...That's what PAC's do.



You can say that about any Political Action Committee. I've worked for a company that donated to EVERY candidate in any state they had operations.



So if you feel that PAC's are just bribe money, then sure, you're claim is valid. You'd have to say the exact same thing about the PAC's set up by Obama, Reid, Soros, etc.

Bingo. There is a universe of difference between legal PAC donations and illegal bribery. Your semantics and terminology is pretty "fast and loose." More specifically, your definition is just wrong. One is legal and sanctioned and controlled by regulations and laws, the other is not and prosecuted. One is sneaky and underhanded. The other is up front, in the open, and reported (which is exactly what Romney does).





"Difference Between Political Contribution and Bribe"



Political Contribution vs Bribe



There is an ocean of difference between a political contribution and bribe. However, some people who are getting disillusioned with modern political systems contend that the two concepts are just the same and their only difference is seven syllables.



In strict legal parlance, political contribution is sanctioned by existing statutes. In the United States, getting political contribution is a constitutional right of candidates running for public office. Bribe on the other hand is outright dirty money. The act of accepting a bribe is prohibited under the law wherever you are.



Following these basic premises, giving political contribution is a legitimate act to support a candidate, the party, or a political action committee. In contrast, a bribe is intended to corrupt good judgment and the political processes. Because of this, it is considered illegitimate and punishable.



Because a bribe is illegal and is given discreetly, there is no limit to the amount you can give. Anyone can also give or accept bribes. On the other hand, a political contribution is subject to rules and regulations mandated by Federal, state, or local statutes.



Read more: Difference Between Political Contribution and Bribe | Difference Between | Political Contribution vs Bribe http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-political-contribution-and-bribe/#ixzz3HdxyrWMf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://conservativetribune.com/romneys-predictions-all-came-true/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I forgot to answer the OP. Romney is already campaigning/running for the nomination in 2016. I think the odds are long (10-15% of winning the nomination).



As for political donations, they go to the heart of the very corrupt government we have. Whether a thing is legal or not does not make it moral. If you donate to someone to get more loot from government contracts (whether those are defense contracts or food stamps) there is no difference between that and a bribe. Buying another politician's endorsement - well - you can decide for yourself what that is.



Regardless of what you want to call Romney's money handouts to politicians in NH they are still going on. And if he can't turn those dollars into convincing win a small state in the Northeast, he's done.



The biggest problem with Romney in terms of a general election is that he doesn't excite anyone. The evangelicals aren't going to work for him and none of the libertarian republicans will either. That's the entire grass roots of the party already written off before you even get started.

Polls show that if he and Obama ran today, that Romney would win.

scott715 wrote:
Polls show that if he and Obama ran today, that Romney would win.

Unfortunately, polls show that he'd lose to Hillary. In fact, all Republicans would lose to Hillary.



I don't know how or why, but it appears as though she will be our next president.

stuckinbig10country wrote:

Polls show that if he and Obama ran today, that Romney would win.

Unfortunately, polls show that he'd lose to Hillary. In fact, all Republicans would lose to Hillary.



I don't know how or why, but it appears as though she will be our next president.

seems to be the exact conversation we were having in 2008, doesn't it?