Never mind that midterm elections are just over a month away, let’s start speculating about 2016! There is increasing speculation that Mitt will run for president in 2016. Does this mean the Mormon Moment will be revived?
The Washington Post gives a timeline that Mitt is backing down from his denials. After the Mitt Documentary was released, Mitt was asked if he would run in 2016. “Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no,” he told a NY Times reporter on Jan. 18. On Aug. 26, Mitt told Hugh Hewitt, ““circumstances can change.” Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said back in July, “I happen to be in the camp that thinks he’s actually going to run, and I think he will be the next president of the United States,” on MSNBC’s “Hardball With Chris Matthews.” A CNN/ORC poll finds Romney would beat Obama 53 percent to 44 percent if the election were held back on July 27. Yahoo News reported that Mitt is Definitely Looking at 2016. Conservative Pundit Pat Buchanan has repeated that Mitt is running several times this month including outlets Real Clear Politics, Newsmax, Breitbart, and CNN .
Is the Mormon Moment set for a return? Would you vote for Mitt?
[poll id=435]
Wheat & Tares 
Would I vote for Mitt?
Yes! 7 times 70
Would I vote for Mitt?
Yes! 7 times 70
Sorry, wanted to get the handle right.
Mitt is the most qualified person to have ever run for president — he has successfully run a high profile State, several high profile companies, an international civic event, has an MBA and Law degree from Ivy League schools and has the connection with the common man having served as an LDS Bishop.
Unfortunately, if he does run and Hillary does too he will loose. The country will choose political correctness over substance yet again and our economy and foreign policy will continue to falter.
Last time Mitt ran…. the BBC did a documentary which didn’t show the church in a good light. The more light that shines on the church…. the harder it is for the church to distance itself from it’s hairy past. That said… he’s definitely qualified.
I think Hillary has no chance to win. The 3am phone call ad in 2008 vs Bengazi will haunt her along with other deficits (ie her healthcare in 1990’s vs ObamaCare). But, then again, it is the same electorate that voted for B.O. wimp so you may be right.
Either a business man if you are interested in economic revival or a military general if you’re interest is a secure place to live. I’ll vote for either one. Actually, I’ll vote for Hillary over a mostly-absent community organizer.
Though he may not look it, Mitt Romney will be getting up there in age come 2016. He will be one month younger than Reagan was in 1980, three years younger than McCain was in 2008. He has an 18-year-old granddaughter who more likely than not will make him a great-grandfather before 2020. Romney is so old that Hillary Clinton is five months younger than him.
I sure hope not, because I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be President. I’d love to vote for a genuine classical conservative from any party, but I’m pretty sure there’s zero chance of that.
#6 – “Just b/c there’s snow on the roof…”. Yep, if Mitt runs for POTUS in 2016 and is elected, he will be 69 years and 315 days when sworn in. Not a “spring chicken”, sure, and almost literally twice the required age. However, “Clean Living” has given him somewhat of a “fountain of youth”, so I’ve no doubt of his ability to serve his term, and even another. It’d be refreshing to see Mitt’s “tribe” frolicking on the WH lawn. At the rate it increaseth, they might have to rent out the National Mall for a family reunion!
As the “Gipper”, Ronald Reagan (himself 69 years, 349 days when sworn in), put it in his 1984 re-election campaign: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” (NOTE: Walter “Fritz” Mondale was 56 at the time, and Reagan was 73).
Still, if after an inauspicious loss in 2012, Mitt is the best the Republicans can do, they’re boned. Look foward (auughh!) to Hillary Clinton in the White House. Our standards have truly become a limbo contest. If the Republicans REALLY want to capture the WH, they ought to limit the field to women, there’s no shortage of viable Republican ladies. Time to leave the “Good Ole Boys” club image behind.
The 2016 election is shaping up to be one in which I might just sit out. The only Republican I’ve encountered that I’m willing to vote for is Huntsman (who doesn’t stand a chance). The only Democrat being talked about seriously is Clinton, who I have zero interest in voting for. I find Rand Paul to be entirely uninteresting (at least in terms of the Executive Branch. I might prefer he stay in the Senate). And it’s a foregone conclusion that anyone from the Green Party is going to be certifiable. If it comes down to Romney vs. Clinton, it will be the first time in my adult life that there wasn’t a candidate that I felt like I cared for at least a little bit. How exactly does one vote in that situation?
I’m hoping for Romney Vs Warren, but neither wants to run. Why can’t we get two good choices at the same time?
Benjamin: I intend to write in “Darth Vader” as my candidate in that situation, because he is the president we need and deserve. Also I live in a state where my vote either way will make zero difference. Darth Vader 2016!
I nominate Benjamin Netanyahu — we just need to ignore the whole US citizen criteria. That is a real leader.
I think the first question is will he run for the nomination. I’m betting he will. Then you can ask the question will he run for president but I don’t think he makes it past the nomination process a second time.
#11 – I wanted to draft Penn Jillette for President in 2012; maybe he can be talked into a pay cut and run in 2016!
I’m old enough to remember wishing George Romney had run for President. I would have voted for him proudly. He was a man of integrity and genuine ability. Mitt, however, is another George W Bush: a rich kid who was born on third base and believes he can take credit for that.
Did any of you pay attention to the campaign he ran last time? There’s no way he should have lost that election but on the day the votes were tabulated and he was whooped Romeny’s analysis still told him he’d win. The man couldn’t gather accurate information about the country he was living in and wanted to run with all the media and polling results that were available to anyone who picked up a newspaper or read a political blog.
I understand he’s Mormon and he bought his way to a financial empire but that doesn’t make him qualified to run a country in economic and political peril in a world that’s coming apart. In his first test, his own campaign, he failed miserably with all the odds stacked in his favor.
Please think logically before you wish another unqualified leader on us. We’ve had too many and there’s too much at stake.
Neither party has anyone qualified to be a good President.
Do not forget that the Congress and Senate have done poor work as well. They are all self serving.
It is sad to see so much political nihilism. The Mitt Romney that goverened Massachusettes is probably the best outcome we could hope for on the Republican side. He was a moderate who worked with a blue state. The “try to assuage the conservatives, inauthentic Romney” is just awful. I would love a GOP that would champion and support Huntsman. I may not vote for him or that side of the aisle but I would feel much better if that were the GOP sitting on the other side of the table.
I admit I don’t like the generic idea of voting for people related to past presidents in general. It feels so oligarch to me (which is why I voted for Barack over Hillary). That said, Hillary is and was smarter than Bill in the first place. She is about as well-qualified as anyone male or female. I am the odd Mormon that votes Democrat (save your hate I have heard it all) for moral and economic reasons.
So Mitt v Hilllary doesn’t fill me with existential dread. If we get an executive branch that will fight or neuter the crazy conservatives in the house and senate so we can get work done I will take it. If we get an executive branch that understands that when socioeconomic levels get to high it is bad for society and the economy and wants to get serious about finding reasonable solutions and one that believes in science and the threat of climate change I will take that.
I just hope whatever happens the LDS church stops being the most politically monolithic church in the country. The lack of political diversity and the way in which conservative politics have seem to take hold of so many aspects of cultural Mormonism is really unfortunate IMHO. I don’t want most Mormons to agree with me politically, I just want a church with decent and robust political diversity. I want to look at the leadership of the church and know there is more than one or two people in the entire 70 and 15 that bring a perspective to the world that leads them to vote similarly to me. I want to be able to have an Obama sticker on my car and it be no big deal and completely unremarkable in the LDS parking lot. Our church will be stronger for it.
I’d certainly vote for Romney before I’d vote for Hillary Clinton, but if it comes right down to it, I’ll either vote Libertarian or stay home. I’ve heard the jingoists say “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” I’d say, “If you don’t vote, at least you’re not complicit.”
I’d be fairly torn between Mitt and Hillary, honestly. I like that they are both fairly centrist. I suspect Hillary’s better overall, but in the office of POTUS, it’s hard to predict what works and easy to pin failure using confirmation bias.
#19 – Hawk, whatever you’ve been baking in the brownies, please SHARE. That’s gotta be some powerful stuff if you actually believe that Hilllary Clinton is (1) a “centrist” or can be considered remotely close to being one, and (2) in the same league as an executive in ANY capacity as Mitt (who STILL smiles to the extent that he raises the hackles of my “inner Klingon” to not trust such a man).
Methinks the 2016 primaries are going to be a surprise in both parties, and likely a “third” party candidate will end up, if not necessarily surpassing either the Democrat or Republican candidate, being the proverbial “kingmaker”. The only thing I’m certain of is that BOTH major parties will nominate someone that has yet to throw her/his hat into the Presidential ring yet, not even at the primary level. Mitt and HIllary DO have one thing in common: nomination of either, or BOTH (auughh!) by their respective parties will indicate an utter dearth of electable candidates from same.
I’d like to see Mia Love run herself by 2020, but FIRST she has to win a national office (like the Utah 4th Congressional district she’s currently stumping for) to garner serious consideration. That, in so many ways, would stick it straight up the liberals’ collective craw.
Note: I could vote for Romney, but Ann’s health is kind of suspect, and methinks she’s too smart to be a glutton for punishment.
#18 – Indeed, vote Libertarian, I’m likely to in 2016 as well as for the Congressional round this year. A vote for whom you want, regardless of their chances, is not “wasted”. If you think about it, by the same logic, the current electoral system, being winner-take-all for the Presidential candidate for the state’s electoral votes, fairly much disenfranchises those who vote in a state where the outcome is of little speculation. Not that I think they should stay home, of course, but the net effect is that even in so-called ‘landslides’, a turn of about 3 – 5 % of the voting public, strategically placed, can drastically change the outcome. Hence the REAL election is in the “swing” states…just as the REAL Super Bowl is the NFC Conference Championship!
To say that Romney and Clinton are not centrists shows how polarized our country has become.
Re. #15 – I’m old enough to remember wishing George Romney had run for President. I would have voted for him proudly.
You must not be old enough to remember that he did run, and badly – he was inarticulate and seen as wishy-washy. He finally sunk himself by remarking that he’d been “brainwashed” by the US military on a 1965 Vietnam fact-finding tour, a poor choice of words to say the least. He lost his @$$ in the NH primary and withdrew, and Nixon threw him the dubious bone of appointing him HUD secretary after the election.
I honestly can’t think of any way in which Hillary Clinton has been a centrist, thought-wise, in any meaningful economic or social policy sense. She has acted that way in the Senate, which we can hope means the triumph of age and experience over youthful idealism. If she’s elected, the hope would be that she would govern expediently rather than ideologically, as Bill did.
#22 – George Romney’s big downfall, like his son some 44 years later, was that he is wise but not sly…it’s a bad ol’ world out there, and those that are “in the world but not of it” just don’t cut it as Presidential material, sad to say. Too bad “Tricky Dick” didn’t have sons. Or, on the more local level, one fictional polictian of note, Robert Underdunk Terwiliger, put it best:
“Because you need me, Springfield. Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king. That’s why I did this, to save you from yourselves. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a city to run!”
Mitt whose response to getting his butt kicked last time was “I didn’t really want it anyway” – after spending hundreds of millions of $$$ and campaigning for it for nearly a decade.
Let the mormon loser run again. Maybe this time he will be beaten by a woman.