Romney considers another presidential run

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/229087-romney-considering-another-presidential-run

January 09, 2015, 04:59 pm
Romney considers another presidential run
By Jonathan Easley

2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney is considering a third consecutive run for president.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the former Massachusetts governor told donors at a meeting in Manhattan that turbulence overseas and concern about the long-term health of the economy has him mulling another bid.

Romney is currently near the top of most polls of potential Republican presidential candidates.


Still, those polls reflect a stage in the race when name identification is paramount. As the 2012 Republican nominee, Romney is among the most well-known candidates considering a run.

In addition, strategists say Romney is enjoying a nostalgia tour that could quickly dissipate if he officially throws his hat in the ring.

Romney’s announcement comes at a time when a big field of potential GOP contenders are jockeying to stay at the forefront to keep Republican leaders and donors from committing their resources elsewhere.

Jeb Bush has been the most aggressive candidate by far.

In addition to announcing that he was “actively exploring” a presidential bid last month, the former Florida governor has moved to untangle his business interests by resigning from corporate boards, and kicked off the fundraising season by launching a leadership PAC and a super-PAC this week. There are reports that Bush has a goal of raising $100 million in the first quarter of 2015.

With two national campaigns behind him, Romney has the political infrastructure and donor base to challenge Bush for the establishment mantle.

But unlike Bush, Romney has sent mixed signals. In August, Romney said he wasn't even thinking about a potential third consecutive bid, but added that "circumstances can change."

[Cyber Liberty]

What a dick.  So, he's not satisfied with screwing the pooch twice already?

[truth_seeker]

Rational thinking and analysis. A "probability weighted" calculation of results.

My approval of results with any democrat: 10%
My approval of results with Romney: 60%
My approval of results with Cruz: 80%

Probability of Romney win: 55%
Probability of Cruz win: 15%

Best probability weighted result is with Romney. (.60 * .55)=0.330
...result with Cruz (.80 * .15) =0.120

You can argue with my numbers, but you cannot convince me the formula is wrong.

Cruz is a very good guy, but he is also on his way to being bogged down by an image of fiery speechmaker and no results, or worse negative results.

[aligncare]

Nixon and Reagan both made three attempts at the presidency. The rest is history.

[olde north church]

Nixon and Reagan both made three attempts at the presidency. The rest is history.

Yeah, so did William Jennings Bryan.  History that.

[libertybele]

Wow.  This I really didn't expect and certainly he wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd rather see him as the nominee than Bush or Christie. Of course the question is really, if elected as the GOP candidate could he win against Clinton or Warren? Warren will appeal to the far left and therefore Romney may have a chance with winning over some more moderate Democrats, but not so sure he'd win against Clinton.  Romney isn't a good debater but on the other hand Clinton carries a lot of baggage. 

IMO I think it is way too early for any candidate to actually come forward and publicly announce that they are going to run; too much time for the opposition to destroy them.

[libertybele]

Rational thinking and analysis. A "probability weighted" calculation of results.

My approval of results with any democrat: 10%
My approval of results with Romney: 60%
My approval of results with Cruz: 80%

Probability of Romney win: 55%
Probability of Cruz win: 15%

Best probability weighted result is with Romney. (.60 * .55)=0.330
...result with Cruz (.80 * .15) =0.120

You can argue with my numbers, but you cannot convince me the formula is wrong.

Cruz is a very good guy, but he is also on his way to being bogged down by an image of fiery speechmaker and no results, or worse negative results.

???? What formula are you using and what are you basing your stats on?

[truth_seeker]

???? What formula are you using and what are you basing your stats on?

The formula is right there, and the probabilities are my estimates.

[Cyber Liberty]

Rational thinking and analysis. A "probability weighted" calculation of results.

My approval of results with any democrat: 10%
My approval of results with Romney: 60%
My approval of results with Cruz: 80%

Probability of Romney win: 55%
Probability of Cruz win: 15%

Best probability weighted result is with Romney. (.60 * .55)=0.330
...result with Cruz (.80 * .15) =0.120

You can argue with my numbers, but you cannot convince me the formula is wrong.

Cruz is a very good guy, but he is also on his way to being bogged down by an image of fiery speechmaker and no results, or worse negative results.

The formula may be OK (I'm not committing to that), but it begins with the false dichotomy that Romney and Cruz are the only options.  Between the two, I don't need a calculator to know who has the better chance of winning, even if it is significantly less than even money. 

I do agree with your starting constants, vis "approval of results."

[truth_seeker]

The formula may be OK (I'm not committing to that), but it begins with the false dichotomy that Romney and Cruz are the only options.  Between the two, I don't need a calculator to know who has the better chance of winning, even if it is significantly less than even money. 

I do agree with your starting constants, vis "approval of results."

Great somebody understands the model, for "probability weighted expected results"

I used it to illustrate the point. Contrary to popular opinion I am bright enough to know there are other alternatives.

I used Romney and Cruz to illustrate the general alternatives (center-right moderate, versus far right)

[Cyber Liberty]

Great somebody understands the model, for "probability weighted expected results"

I used it to illustrate the point. Contrary to popular opinion I am bright enough to know there are other alternatives.

I used Romney and Cruz to illustrate the general alternatives (center-right moderate, versus far right)

You illustrated the point, and it was a good presentation.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Wow.  This I really didn't expect and certainly he wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd rather see him as the nominee than Bush or Christie. Of course the question is really, if elected as the GOP candidate could he win against Clinton or Warren? Warren will appeal to the far left and therefore Romney may have a chance with winning over some more moderate Democrats, but not so sure he'd win against Clinton.  Romney isn't a good debater but on the other hand Clinton carries a lot of baggage. 

IMO I think it is way too early for any candidate to actually come forward and publicly announce that they are going to run; too much time for the opposition to destroy them.

I personally like Romney better than Bush or Christie too.

It takes a long time to build and test a national campaign.  That is why so many GOP Presidents have to run multiple time before they win.  That rats will take any ol' community activist and let them run the country.  Republicans vet our candidates.

[aligncare]

While there are no perfect candidates, of the three, Romney has the best chance.

I don't think Americans are ready to vote for another Bush, even one with a good record as governor of Florida; and even though Christie was reelected, New Jersey today is not much improved than when he first took office; people are still leaving the state in droves.

[olde north church]

While there are no perfect candidates, of the three, Romney has the best chance.

I don't think Americans are ready to vote for another Bush, even one with a good record as governor of Florida; and even though Christie was reelected, New Jersey today is not much improved than when he first took office; people are still leaving the state in droves.

There are many reasons people leave a state.  Some in a governor's control, others not.  When there is a combination of both, it's just a matter of time.

[Relic]

Romney is a good man. I strongly supported him in 2012. But Romney has no fire in the belly. He is not a fighter. Romney gives the appearance of someone sliding into line because he thinks he'll be given something, not stepping up to fight for what he wants. If Romney wins the nomination, I'll reluctantly support him. If Bush or Christie win the nomination, I'm staying home.

[truth_seeker]

Much of a President's platform will be a composite of his personal choices, and the party's consensus at the time. The platform only becomes an obstacle, if it goes outside popular opinion. (The Message)

The single most defining factor in a candidate's success is his personality, demeanor, verbal skill.

Using Obama as basis, he has two different presentations; when giving official prepared speeches he is very good, but talking off the cuff he is weak.

Bill Clinton was and remains very good in both modes. (The Messenger)

In judging and ranking the GOP hopefuls, I will be watching how they come across, as people.   

[libertybele]

Romney is a good man. I strongly supported him in 2012. But Romney has no fire in the belly. He is not a fighter. Romney gives the appearance of someone sliding into line because he thinks he'll be given something, not stepping up to fight for what he wants. If Romney wins the nomination, I'll reluctantly support him. If Bush or Christie win the nomination, I'm staying home.

I agree.  I am also of the opinion that Romney is a good man AND would have significantly headed this country in a different direction.  Quite a few Americans have in the end realized that Romney would have been better than Obama (of course you could also argue that's not saying much).  He predicted the fallout in the Middle East as well as what would happen with Putin; he knows what he's talking about; but he doesn't speak with enough "conviction" and comes across as weak and someone who would be too accomodating as he is such nicce guy.  If he were to win the nomination, I would vote for him as well ... but I'm not so sure he could win against Hillary, though I think he has a better chance than Bush or Christie.

[Fishrrman]

Sumthin' tells me that I'm gonna be leavin' some blank spaces on the ballot in November 2016.

If I bother to go to the polls at all...

[Oceander]

Wow.  This I really didn't expect and certainly he wouldn't be my first choice, but I'd rather see him as the nominee than Bush or Christie. Of course the question is really, if elected as the GOP candidate could he win against Clinton or Warren? Warren will appeal to the far left and therefore Romney may have a chance with winning over some more moderate Democrats, but not so sure he'd win against Clinton.  Romney isn't a good debater but on the other hand Clinton carries a lot of baggage. 

IMO I think it is way too early for any candidate to actually come forward and publicly announce that they are going to run; too much time for the opposition to destroy them.

Agreed

[Kansas]

Sumthin' tells me that I'm gonna be leavin' some blank spaces on the ballot in November 2016.

If I bother to go to the polls at all...

That very opinion is what gave us Owebama in the last election.  So by saying you are staying home you are giving a voting slot to the demorats, probably Hillary.  Do you really think Hillary would be better than Romney or Bush?

[Oceander]

That very opinion is what gave us Owebama in the last election.  So by saying you are staying home you are giving a voting slot to the demorats, probably Hillary.  Do you really think Hillary would be better than Romney or Bush?

[Fishrrman]

Kansas wrote above (about my staying home on election day):
[[ That very opinion is what gave us Owebama in the last election.  So by saying you are staying home you are giving a voting slot to the demorats, probably Hillary.  Do you really think Hillary would be better than Romney or Bush? ]]

You know, ten or fifteen years ago I would have written exactly what you did above, if someone said what I said above earlier.

But not today.

Today, I see myself as being in the same frame of mind that a supporter of the Whig party might have held back around 1856.

And I regard your comment above as if it had been spoken to me by -other- Whigs after having mentioned (back in 1856) that I was no longer interested in supporting that party.

Whether I will conclude that it's worth my while to support the Republicans in 2016 will depend on what we see them do in the coming months.

If they act like an opposition party, and OPPOSE, they'll probably get my vote.

But if they act like the "GOP-e business as usual" party, ain't so certain.

I'm tired of GOP candidates that stand for nothing and [even if elected] would do next-to-nothing to halt the nation's slide toward oblivion.

Let some other true believer vote for them. I'm just tired of it.
It may actually take a "democratic reign of terror" for a few election cycles before the masses of voters actually wake up and start demanding a "second party" that actually does something.

By then, that "second party" may NOT be "The Republican Party"...

(By the way, I have a luxury regarding this that others probably don't have. I live in Connecticut, one of the deepest-blue of the blue states. There is almost zero chance a Republican will again be elected to statewide office here, ever. And almost no chance that the state will vote Republican in a presidential election again. Even if cast for the Pubbies, my vote will be of no consequence nationally. So for me, voting or not voting has little effect, other than for some local/county candidates...)

[massadvj]

People in the media are speculating that Romney intends to run against Jeb Bush from the right, attacking Bush on issues like immigration and common core.  I find this quite interesting because to me Bush's record is well within the realm of what I would consider conservative acceptability, whereas Romney's record is far outside of the realm of conservative acceptability.

Am I the only one who thinks Jeb Bush is MORE conservative than Mitt Romney?  I base this on what they actually did in office as opposed to what they say in order to get elected.  I almost never base my vote on what candidates say.  I learned my lesson on that a long time ago.

 

[libertybele]

People in the media are speculating that Romney intends to run against Jeb Bush from the right, attacking Bush on issues like immigration and common core.  I find this quite interesting because to me Bush's record is well within the realm of what I would consider conservative acceptability, whereas Romney's record is far outside of the realm of conservative acceptability.

Am I the only one who thinks Jeb Bush is MORE conservative than Mitt Romney?  I base this on what they actually did in office as opposed to what they say in order to get elected.  I almost never base my vote on what candidates say.  I learned my lesson on that a long time ago.

??? I reside in the state of Florida.  Republican governors in Florida over the course of history have been few and far between. But through his actions, speeches, etc. I would hardly consider Jeb a conservative.  I didn't like being addressed in Spanish over the public airwaves; and he recently just did it again.  Secondly, he is for "common core" and is very pro-immigration as his wife is Hispanic.  He had numerous S&L scandals and "land grabs" that he was intertwined with and he is opposed to maintaining U.S. sovereignty from the U.N.  So I'm not quite so sure why you would consider Jeb more conservative.

Mitt Romney is not a conservative either and his wavering stance on gun control has always been a concern of mine.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jeb_Bush.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm

[massadvj]

So I'm not quite so sure why you would consider Jeb more conservative.

From what I know, Jeb Bush was more fiscally responsible, and did not impose anything on the State of Florida as onerous as Romneycare.  Also, Jeb has a consistent pro-life record whereas Romney betrayed the people of his state on this issue.

Bush's speaking in Spanish is not very relevant to me.  GWB often did the same thing.  In fact, being an aspiring Spanish speaker myself, I think it is fine.

Romney does have a more conservative record on immigration, that is true.  In my mind, Romneycare and being pro-choice to the point of allowing Romneycare to fund abortions were far worse than anything in Bush's record.

Don't get me wrong.   I don't intend to support either one of them.  But I still think Bush has a more conservative record of the two.