Romney for US president in 2016? Iowa poll puts him on top

[DonViejo]

Source: Agence France-Presse

Americans may not be through with Mitt Romney after all. The two-time Republican presidential candidate has repeatedly stressed over the past year that he is not interested in a third shot at the White House.

But an Iowa poll released Wednesday suggests that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who lost to President Barack Obama in 2012, would be the party’s odds-on favorite if he threw his hat in the ring for 2016.


The survey of Iowa Republican voters conducted by Suffolk University and USA Today showed that if Romney was added to the pool of potential 2016 Republican contenders, 35 percent of respondents would place him first in the Iowa caucuses, the political contest that kicks off the primary calendar.

Arkansas ex-governor Mike Huckabee came in a distant second, at just nine percent, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailing at 6.5 percent and former senator Rick Santorum at six percent. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each earned five percent, while the remaining field was in the low single digits.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/28/romney-for-us-president-in-2016-iowa-poll-puts-him-on-top/

[rurallib]

1. I'm telling you, Romney will run again if he sees any daylight

his ego is huge. I think he really think he believes he has been chosen by God to be the first Mormon president. I believe he sees himself as a savior of America.

And I encourage him to run.

[DonViejo]

11. I think the GOP is wildly in search of a 21st Century Thomas Dewey.

[Aristus]

17. Romney could end up as their 21st Century Republican William Jennings Bryan.

n/t

[rurallib]

29. or the Republicans own Harold Stassen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Stassen

shows how old I am. I remember his name always coming up at presidential campaign time

[brooklynite]

54. Actually, Harold Stassen WAS a Republican...

[Andy823]

2. This proves on thing

The republican "clown" car is so full of poor candidates that some thing their only hope is to bring back someone who has lost twice already in getting to the WH. Someone who lies, changes his position on the issues depending on who he is talking to, and who thinks that a huge majority of people in this country are "takers" who simply want handouts instead of actually working. If he ran think of all the ads that could be used against him using things he said or did in his last race for the WH.

It seems like every year the republican "crop" of candidates gets worse, not better, and this pretty much proves that.

[kelliekat44]

12. Yeah, but he is white and privileged and rich. It doesn't matter what he is really like. nt

[Aldo Leopold]

13. Nailed it.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

3. Why is the name "Harold Stassen" wandering through my mind?

Or perhaps William Jennings Bryan (who ran for President on the Democratic ticket in 1896, 1900 and 1908) would be more appropriate.

[DonViejo]

14. Don't forget Dewey! He lost in 1944 and...

1948!

[lunasun]

4. Robmey brings his own money and money friends too . Maybe the RNC feels if they are gonna

Lose at least don't drain their own coffers

[jwirr]

5. They do not have anyone else.

[Proud Public Servant]

8. Same could be said of us and HRC, of course

Said it before and I'll keep saying it: nominating the loser from the last go-around is standard operating procedure for teh GOP, but not something we Dems do.

[jwirr]

15. We at least have some that would be good if we had the sense to nominate them and they wanted

to run.

[wordpix]

25. Jebbie, but he's keeping mum, must have lots of skeletons in closet

One for sure is his ties to FL developers who totally defied wetlands protection laws, digging, dredging and redirecting wetlands into golf course streams and ponds.

With rampant corruption in the development sector generally, what else did Jebbie agree to?

[Proud Public Servant]

6. The one think this underscores, as always

is that, at this stage of the game, polling is about little more than name recognition. It's no predictor of how people will actually feel, or vote, once a contest is underway. That's true not only of Romney's poll number but of Hillary's as well.

[nevergiveup]

10. Yep

At this point it is only about name recognition.

[Art_from_Ark]

51. Mike Huckabee won the 2008 Republican caucus in Iowa,

with John McCain running a very distant 4th.
Rick Santorum barely beat out Mitt Romney in 2012 (by 34 votes).
Papa bu$h beat out Ronald Reagan in 1980.
Bob Dole beat out Papa bu$h in 1988.

Since 1980, the only time a Republican candidate who had opposition won the Iowa caucus and went on to win the nomination was in 2000.

[bklyncowgirl]

53. Remember President Guiliani? You're right about the name recognition.

I think though that Romney has one thing going for him. The GOP establishment sees nothing wrong with Romney.

He lost yes, but in their view he shouldn't have lost. This time with more money, more voter suppression and a predictably lower black voter turnout for a presumably white candidate, he could, at least in their minds, very well win.

Romney has the virtue, shared only by Jeb Bush and Chris Christie of not scaring the bejeesus out of moderates and does not have Bush's last name or Christies ethics problems.

[underpants]

7. Please proceed Governor

[MADem]

9. He wants to be asked to the dance.

He's expecting flowers, a box of candy, and some serious sweet talk before he says yes.

He's sitting on the verandah, muttering "Fiddle Dee Dee" and waiting for some commentary from the assembled suitors a bit more enthused than this:





Of course, the fact that Perry imploded has helped his game considerably!

Now all he has to do is be begged, and convince Queen Annie to get off her horsie and campaign with him!

[wordpix]

26. hahahaha

[LibDemAlways]

16. Interest in Romney signals one thing.

The Repukes have zero decent candidates. The smell of desperation is already in the air two years out.

[samsingh]

18. all this shows is that repugs are the fools we think they are and that would would vote the

self absorbed 1percenter to their top spot only to lose to the Democratic candidate.

[EEO]

19. Reagan ran three times before winning the presidency...

[Art_from_Ark]

52. But he never lost as the actual nominee

[rtracey]

20. too soon

4 years is too soon for Romney to be a contender. Too many remember the 47%, the arrogant wife comment of "those people", the humiliation of the landslide Obama victory, the idiocy of Dick Morris, Carl Rove, Paul Ryan, Fox News on election night, the "what, Ohio is still in play.... and now tie all that together with the on going political assault of women, the corruption of the Supreme Court, the carelessness of the immigration reform, the total thoughtlessness of race issues, the totally 1 sided voter rights suppression issues. Even though he may be polling high in Iowa now, I believe the GOP kings will NOT support Romney this time, because he is too arrogant to change, he will STILL not show his tax forms, he still will slip the tongue....and if you look at the poll..."Arkansas ex-governor Mike Huckabee came in a distant second, at just nine percent, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie trailing at 6.5 percent and former senator Rick Santorum at six percent. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul each earned five percent, while the remaining field was in the low single digits."

how much can you rely on a poll that includes Huckabee, Santorium, and Ted Cruz

[TRoN33]

21. His insatiable thirst for the White House sure make me nervous as hell.

Romney and his wife always love to look down on poorer and non-Mormons as serfs/peasant plebs. They really thought they are entitled to the potentially unlimited power (in modern political vernacular, Republicans would allow Romney to do whatever he like to do despite laws to limit his presidential powers which is very ironic considering their frivolous lawsuit against current sitting president for exact same reasons).

Romney's Presidency is going to be scorched-earth and absolute plutocracy.

[Purveyor]

22. He would win against HRC. eom

[INdemo]

49. I agree

the best thing that Hillary could do for this country is announce tomorrow that she will not be a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

[7962]

23. I think he also leads in the "least crazy" category. nt

[SoapBox]

24. I'm sure the Mormon Cult would be thrilled...

they could keep up their sleazy activities (Prop. 8 - CA) and funnel untold millions to buy him into office.

[MADem]

30. I think the Mormon "cult" or whatever--they're more like a political

regional juggernaut (with quirky and non-mainstream religious practices that appear founded in a fairly recent, in terms of human history, con job, to say nothing of a healthy dose of homophobia/sexism) has a much better candidate. The question is, will they unveil him? AGAIN?

If they're going to do it, they need to start pumping him up fairly soon--he doesn't have enough "name brand recognition."

This guy, with the right publicity (and he's super-wealthy, he could afford to self-fund) could take it for the GOP. He's young(ish), handsome, has a great looking family who would help him on the campaign trail, he plays well with Democrats (which would piss off some hardliners in the GOP) and he's very, VERY smart.

Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr. (born March 26, 1960) is an American politician, businessman, and diplomat who served as the 16th Governor of Utah from 2005 to 2009, and as United States Ambassador to Singapore from 1992 to 1993, and China from 2009 to 2011. He has served in the administrations of four U.S. Presidents and was a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.[1] In January 2014, Huntsman was named chairman of the Atlanticist think-tank the Atlantic Council.[2]
He began his career as a White House staff assistant for Ronald Reagan, and was appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and United States Ambassador to Singapore by George H.W. Bush. Later as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, he launched global trade negotiations in Doha in 2001 and guided the accession of China into the World Trade Organization. He also served as CEO of his family-owned Huntsman Corporation and chairman of the Huntsman Cancer Foundation.
While governor, he was named Chairman of the Western Governors Association, and joined the Executive Committee of the National Governors Association. Under his leadership, Utah was named the best managed state in America by the Pew Center on the States.[3] He won re-election in 2008 with nearly 78% of the vote and left office with approval ratings over 80%.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

This guy could take the "sexist" and "homophobic" vote because he comes off as "reasonable," (please don't fail to notice the snark and in this sentence) so long as one doesn't think too hard about the future of the Supreme Court....he could tout his executive experience as governor, and his international experience as ambassador x 2, etc.

If they decided to revisit this guy, and the GOP machine got behind him with mailing lists, donor lists, on-the-ground help down to the precinct level, etc. he could be formidable.

[ALBliberal]

33. too sane for the Tea Party crowd imo

The GOP is so split between the traditional "pro business" faction and the "fundamentalist Christian" faction it will be hard for them to find a middle ground candidate.

[MADem]

34. I agree, but if they ever got their shit together, this is probably one of the

few who still admits to being on their team who could win.

[LiberalLovinLug]

45. Not really that hard

Most successful GOP candidates and politicians are either great pretenders or just plain sociopaths. A greedy pro-business candidate on the Republican side only has to be a really good actor. Fundies are so easily fooled. Because they so desperately want to believe that they have a True Believer they can vote for over the heathen liberal atheist candidate. Look no further than GWB. invoking Christian talking points throughout his Presidency, and even creating a new Christian advisory headed by someone that later said he was disparaged by Republicans and couldn't even get an appointment to see W., whose listening to this group was referred to as dealing with the crazies by some top Republicans. (Sorry I've looked for a link for 10 minutes so you'll have to take my word)

And I don't believe for a second that Obama is the pious Christian devotee he claims to be either. And I almost choked on my beer hearing that Hillary responded to the question of her favorite book as "The Bible".

They all know they have nothing to lose. Pretending they are God-fearing zealots may help to garner some votes from the more moderate religious nuts, and at the same time those statements are virtually ignored by their Democratic base.

[Hari Seldon]

27. the tides of time and history

suggest that this is a likely scenario

[wheniwasincongress]

28. He should wait a couple of Presidents

so he can be the 47th President

[Populist_Prole]

31. I dunno. Is it just me but I think a lot of this is just media food

For a media desperate to report on something. Along the lines of "Let's put it out there and try to generate a buzz and get people talking about it...so we can say we're reporting on what people are talking about". That kind of thing. It just reeks of manufactured news because the actual blurb driving this was just a fart in the wind.

[hughee99]

32. Utterly meaningless poll. n/t

[MADem]

35. Huh? It's a snapshot. It's not "meaningless." It measures an attitude at a point in time.

Suffolk University aren't a bunch of pikers, and they're not saying anything more than "This is the temperature of the water right now."

They aren't speaking to the utility of the information in six months or even a year--it's an indicator of what's happening in the minds of voters right NOW. Nothing more, nothing less, either.

[hughee99]

37. It's only meaning is that it shows more than 2 years out, people aren't paying attention.

The fact that they picked Rmoney is based more on the fact that they recognized his name, not that there's any real groundswell of support for his candidacy.

I'm not suggesting that Suffolk University doesn't know how to conduct a poll, I'm suggesting that they asked questions of people who hadn't given the matter any thought. You might get a more informed opinion on who would win the 2016 Superbowl.

[MADem]

40. No, it means that people who ARE paying attention are settling back into

established paradigms. Obviously, people who weren't paying attention would be babbling about Perry, who has been up in NH, wearing glasses to make himself look smarter, is sniffing around for support .... but has legal problems. Perry has been getting a LOT of puff, but because he is now having problems, the conversation has been about "falling back" to RMoney. Previous to this, the conversation had been all about JEB, but that horse didn't look to sweet to the betting public. People just aren't in a mood for more Bushit.

This isn't about who might "win." It's more of a "mood" survey. It gauges, accurately, not who will run, not who will win, but what the "attitude" is out there--what "type" candidate, if not the actual candidate, the GOP faithful want.

[hughee99]

43. I think the people who aren't paying attention probably don't even realize what Perry is doing.

Only 170 likely caucus voters participated in this survey, and while I don't know how many participated in the survey, I'd guess this is a relatively small number by comparison. It's a survey of the "mood" of the unengaged and uninformed (though one could say any survey of repukes is a survey of the uninformed).

[MADem]

44. Likely caucus voters are probably more informed than the average

citizen. They get that "likely" tag because they've turned out in the past. I think it's just the opposite--a survey of the "mood" of the interested and reasonably aware (I agree with your characterization of "uninformed," though, in that context).

[hughee99]

46. My point was that they referred to it (in the article) as "ONLY 170 likely caucus voters"

leaving me with the impression (perhaps incorrect) that a significant percentage of those polled weren't likely caucus voters. If they had polled only likely caucus voters, I think the poll would be more indicative of the mood.

In any case, in essence I'm arguing the poll has basically no real value and it seems like you're arguing that the poll has a little value (the mood of the voters 2 years out). I don't think we're really that far apart here.

[Xipe Totec]

36. Romney 2016 - Sure he's incompetent, but at least he's not bat-shit crazy. nt

[yurbud]

38. Wow. Do they have ANY prospects with a credible chance of winning general

Or are they justtrying to create jobs for comedy writers?

[C Moon]

39. If that's the case, you'd better believe the GOP will DO NOTHING in congress for the next 2 years

to improve the U.S. economy, etc.
That will give R$ a "I told you so" tool.
It seems to be headed that way.
The Koch brothers are planning our future.

[yurbud]

41. If Democrats put more daylight between themselves and GOP

That party would be dead except among a few inbred trust fund babies and senile racists who still remember the Jim crore era fondly.

[olddad56]

42. if that is the best the GOP has, they are in trouble.

I think that a member of the Bush crime family will run.

[winter is coming]

47. Meh. At this point, it's all about name recognition.

If not... we beat him before, and we can do it again.

[Helen Borg]

48. Run Romney, run.

[truthisfreedom]

50. Imagine how much opposition research has been done

Since his last attempt. The guy is totally dirty. He's terrified to run again.