Why Mitt Romney will win the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination
July 16, 2009 · By Richard Albert
It’s no secret that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is preparing to run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. And who could blame him? After all, he came very close to winning the 2008 Republican nomination, carrying a total of 11 caucuses and primaries before folding his tent to endorse the eventual nominee, Arizona senator John McCain.
Things are looking pretty good for Romney these days. Consider, first, that he remains quite popular among conservatives and maintains an edge over other possible candidates, namely Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.
Second, Romney’s Political Action Committee—Free & Strong America PAC (which he founded shortly after withdrawing from the Republican race in 2008)—continues to raise tons of money and to collect even more IOUs in crucial primary and caucus states.
Third, Romney’s 2008 campaign staff is still intact and ready to deploy at his call.
Fourth, should Romney for some reason be unable to translate his fundraising prowess from his PAC to his 2012 presidential campaign (which is unlikely given the millions he raised in the 2008 campaign), he will nonetheless have the resources to bankroll his campaign with his virtually limitless personal fortune.
All of this paints a promising portrait of Romney’s prospects for 2012. But perhaps the best indicator of Romney’s future success is the very fact that he lost the nomination in 2008.
The Republican Party has a history of nominating standard-bearers who did not win the race their first time around the bend. Since 1980, there have been five Republican presidential nominees. Of those, 4 had previously lost the nomination to another candidate. McCain, for instance, won the nomination in 2008 but had lost to George W. Bush prior in 2000. Bob Dole won the nomination in 1996 but had lost earlier in 1988 to George H.W. Bush, who himself had lost in 1980 to Ronald Reagan, who had lost in 1976 to Gerald Ford.
Coincidence? Not at all. Losing candidates win their second time around (or in Dole’s case, his third) because they keep campaigning in the interim. It’s of course not a visible campaign but more of a quiet campaign whose principal focus is party elites and opinion-leaders. (A similar dynamic occurs in the Liberal Party of Canada: Michael Ignatieff is now the leader, having lost to Stéphane Dion in 2006. Paul Martin became leader in 2003, having lost earlier in 1990 to Jean Chrétien, who had himself lost previously in 1984 to John Turner, who had lost to Pierre Trudeau in 1968.)
So, for all you aspiring party leaders out there, take comfort in the pattern of recent history: losing may be only a prelude to victory.
Interesting, but 538 debunked a lot of this recently: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com.....-myth.html
Sarah Palin is brilliant and will crush Romney. She will be teh saviour of the GOP and the free world.
Mitt Romney will win the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination simply because he is tirelessly working among other Republicans.
Anyone predicting 2012 now is a fool at best. 3 years is an eternity in politics. Case in point: who would ever have predicted in 2005 that Barack Obama would have won the Democratic primary in 2008?
It appears that my levity didn’t travel far enough east to reach “Ian in NS.”
levity? Hilarious.
Anyways, 3 years is plenty of time for mistresses to come out of the closet or some other incident.
In Romney’s defense, he has managed to stay in the news for the right reasons as opposed to say…Palin.
He’s rolling the dice on his stimulus though. He’s all out against it but if the economy is rolling in 3 years he will look wrong. If the economy is still in bad shape by 2012, it could be an interesting race.
I wonder if he’ll get swiftboated in the primaries though on account of his religion. Sometimes republicans eat their own.
You’re absolutely right, RD. Paradoxically, Romney will have the best chance to win in 2012 if the American economy continues to falter, which puts him in the awkward position of having to root (privately, to be sure) against the larger public interest. If, however, the economy improves measurably, Romney will be just another one of the candidates whose name is not Sarah Palin. Others to watch are Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist, Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and, perhaps less predictably, David Petraeus.
Interesting that you left Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels off the list of “others to watch”.
However, let’s put all that aside. I know that you, like me, really want to see J.C. Watts run. I think America needs another Rough Rider in the White House.
My money’s on Jeb.
This is a crock. The only reason Pappa Bush won in 88 was on Reagan’s coattails as the incumbent VP!! That was proven in ‘92 when he made the mistake of running after fainting at the Japanese Prime Minister’s dinner and after “read my lips”.
Romney has about as much chance of winning in 2012 as I do. Why?
-He cannot win the South. They hate him there. A Republican cannot win The White house without winning the South. Huckabee’s fall from grace won’t translate into support for Romney. Evangelicals don’t believe that Mormons are Christians.
-He ain’t no conservative. Mansiongate brought him down during the debates–twice, thanks to Giuliani–and he’s not said a word about illegal immigration since then.
-When he talks, people simply DON’T listen! He’s not a leader. He THINKS he’s one, but that’s not the same thing.
-He was endorsed by Pappa Bush.
-He was for the “touchback” Amnesty scheme of Mike Pence’s.
-He’d win Utah but not CA, NY or FL. A Republican who loses those loses.