Mitt won’t run

I went all in for Mitt in an embarrassing way last time around, and I would vote for him if he ran again. But he isn’t going to run.

I don’t say that as a rhetorical device, or as a tease, or as a temporary sort of condition. (“He’s not running now, but who knows?”) This is a done deal. Mitt Romney will not run for president again.

Period. Full stop.

Yes, there is significant Romney buzz, mainly because the Republicans have no one else. And I confess that, on occasion, I found myself thinking that Mitt could be persuaded. My assessment, until recently, has been that Mitt actually wants to run, but that Ann doesn’t, and so Mitt won’t run in deference to his family. Then I had a conversation with someone who actually knows Mitt and is close enough to understand his thinking.

“The thing you’re missing,” this guy told me, “is how much Mitt hates to lose.”

Apparently, his 1994 Senate loss to Ted Kennedy was absolutely devastating to him. He thought he was going to win, and he came up short. It was the first time in Mitt’s life that he had failed at anything, and he did so publicly in a way that was personally devastating to him. He didn’t dip his toe back into the electoral waters until nearly a decade later when he successfully ran for governor of Massachusetts. And he did that against a weak opponent and with every confidence that he wouldn’t have to lose again.

Then he ran in 2008 and lost. And, once again, it was devastating. On that occasion, it was Ann who persuaded him to pick himself up and get back in the ring again. The thinking was that he had made enough mistakes that he was sure to win in 2012. And he ran that campaign with the full expectation of victory. His pollsters told him he was going to win. His family told him he was going to win. And, of course, I told him he was going to win, which, clearly, was the most important endorsement of all.

And up until election night, he thought he was going to win.

Think about that for a moment. When I doubled down on a Romney victory and dared to defy the wisdom of Nate Silver, everyone told me I was nuts or just plain deluded. And I probably was. But so was Mitt. In spite of it all, he went into Election Day 2012 with the full expectation that he would go to sleep that night as President-Elect of the United States.  And then he lost. And he lost big.  He isn’t willing to expose himself to that again, nor should he.

Because if he runs again, he will assuredly lose.

The Electoral College landscape now makes it next to impossible for any Republican to win the White House, and one that has run and lost isn’t going to be able to leap that impossibly high demographic hurdle. Plus Tea Party types still distrust him, and the Mormon thing is still a lead weight around his shoulders. He has too much baggage to even attempt the leap.

And he knows that now, which is why he won’t run.

People are therefore misinterpreting his ubiquitous presence on the campaign trail now. Mitt wants to be useful, and, to be cynical about it, he doesn’t really have anything else to do. So he has been crowned the kingmaker/elder statesman/great guru of the GOP, and, as my insider friend told me, “that’s not a position he can be fired from.” I’m sure Mitt appreciates the good will and good press as he’s proven right, and he probably enjoys the attention that comes with being entreated.

But if he runs, he will lose. And he hates to lose, so he won’t run.

This message brought to you by the Jacques Cousteau 2016 Campaign Committee.

What It Doesn't Mean
The Languatron Party

20 thoughts on “Mitt won’t run”

  1. A few points here.

    First, I think one of the primary reasons Mitt’s name is being bandied about right now, is the not so eerie accuracy of his predictions for Obama’s second term.

    http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/94342-mitt-romney-made-predictions-prior-obamas-second-term-p-s-right/

    Coupled with massive buyer’s remorse.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/19/president-romney-yes-if-the-election-were-held-today/

    Even though I’m not wild about Mitt primarily because of RomneyCare, clearly this is a man with prescience, and I’m a Tea Party type. And at his core he’s a decent guy. If he were the 2016 candidate, I would vote for him again.

    Certainly it would be a better option that to be consigned to 1 or 2 terms with lunatic hippie and imaginary Indian Elizabeth Warren at the helm. Hillary is a tired 20th Century candidate that just isn’t communist enough for the fringe left, so I don’t see her being much of a factor outside of comedic value.

    But like you, I don’t think Mitt will run.

    That’s not to say all is lost however. You lament that Republicans have no one else, but I think it’s important to remember how Obama’s candidacy came out of nowhere. The Collective was fully prepared to coronate Hillary when Obama came out of left field and became The One.

    In the same manner, Republicans’ definitely have someone else in the way of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, etc.; if they’re able to drop the dead weight of their legacy candidates who make the rounds every primary. These new “conservatarian” candidates, certainly provide a much needed stark difference from communists like Elizabeth Warren who creepily call for “economic patriotism” and corporate loyalty oaths in a very North Korean-like fashion.

    It also should be pointed out here, that one of the reasons that elections will continue to become increasingly difficult for Republicans to win, is because of the foreign invasion that the current administration is facilitating. By shipping in illegal immigrants to every corner of the nation and promising them free stuff, they’re essentially paving the way for a permanent dependent underclass majority. It’s unfortunate that immigrants who come here to escape the oppresive social justice policies of their home nations, will now be assaulted with those same moronic social justice policies as political pawns by America’s elderly hippie ruling class.

  2. Thankfully the two are entirely different and seperate things.

    You can’t really be a zealot, when your message is “please leave us the hell alone.”

  3. No.

    That’s what President Obama was saying when he was trying to make the government shut down appear to be inconvenient by shooing away veterans from the WWII memorial and preventing tourists from driving through unattended public parks.

    Besides, I didn’t realize that Ted Cruz had Obama-like unilateral power that allowed him to shut down the government all by his lonesome. Do you think we could get him to do it again? Pretty please?

  4. Well there’s no doubt that we can always depend on Politico to publish a RINO’s grinding axe.

    http://deneenborelli.com/2014/01/nytimes-exposes-former-rep-steve-latourette-effort-cash-gop-tea-party-battle/

    None of the previous 17 shut downs set back or advanced any causes, primarily because they went mostly unnoticed by virtually everyone outside of the D.C. socialites. It’s only because of the current President’s adolescent tantrums that anyone noticed it at all, or even remembers it. Which begs the question; how does government erect barricades when its been shut down? Is that a paradox or a conundrum?

    At any rate, maybe the shut down is Cruz’s baby and maybe it isn’t. But given that the current President and his beloved government has accomplished the exact opposite of all of their campaign promises, and are using government to actively target political opponents with punitive action, I’m not sure that the few in the general public who actually remembers the shut down will view it as such a bad thing in retrospect.

    Honestly. Our government entertains despots.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2718143/Obamas-monsters-ball-How-White-House-opened-doors-Africas-evil-dictators-homophobes-turned-blind-eye-human-rights-record.html

    Why on Earth shouldn’t we be shutting it down far more frequently?

    Besides. Ted Cruz isn’t the end all be all. As I mentioned, there is still Rick Perry, Rand Paul, Allan West, and a handful of other dark horses. We just need to expunge the legacy candidates who for some reason feel they’re owed a turn or something.

    Anyway, here’s a much better take on the snake oil metaphor:

  5. I’m not sure why you feel that you’re a RINO, but there’s a significant difference between praising a candidate, and simply mentioning them.

    Zealotry, praise…

    Honestly, the misuse of words in unthinking reactionary rhetoric indicates that exposure to the drones within the Grenato campaign may have begubn your fundamental transformation into one of the collectivist pod people. You’re better and deeper than the clique of shallow mental adolescents you’re attempting to ingratiate yourself to.

    Snap out of it. We need you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *