Romney and Bush are considered similar candidates... Several major Romney donors told The Washington Post earlier this year that Bush would be their preferred Republican candidate in 2016.Can America go for a candidate who has already had the nomination and lost? I remember when Nixon thought he could do it, and I considered it a ridiculous notion — I being a teenager and Nixon being correct. You may say: 1. But Nixon got drummed out of office, or 2. It's a new era and what worked in the 60s hasn't worked since the 60s.
After shrinking out of the public light following his crushing loss to President Obama in 2012, Romney has slowly reemerged as a coveted political ally for Republicans seeking office this year.
Romney, 67, has begun to embrace the role of party elder, believing he can shape the national debate and help guide his fractured party to a governing majority.
Well, it is a new era now, it's true, but that's an answer to argument #1. I believe, and I've said it before, that if new media had been around at the time of Watergate, Nixon would have held onto his presidency. As for argument #2, think about why it hasn't worked since then — look at all the losers — and ask why they never tried a second time or, if they did, why they didn't get too far.
The key loser is Al Gore. (The other post-Nixon losers who didn't try again (at least not yet) are: John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford.) Like Nixon, Al Gore had reason to believe that he was the true winner of the election he lost. And there was something of a draft Gore in '04 movement and talk of him again in '08. I think the reason Gore held back was that he didn't get sufficient interest from donors.
If the donors get behind Mitt Romney, why wouldn't Mitt Romney be a creditable candidate? Why couldn't he win if he ran not because he was a sore loser and felt entitled or ambitious, but because he's a modest, dutiful man, called into service in a time of need?
And take into account that the opposing candidate is quite likely to be Hillary Clinton, who was so much the front runner in '04 that her failure to get the nomination makes her seem like a previous loser, and that prior loss seems more loser-ish than Romney's 2012 loss, since Hillary was a frontrunner who got blindsided by an upstart, and Romney had an uphill battle against an incumbent. (And wouldn't Romney have won if he'd kept up the first debate aggressiveness in that second debate?)