Mitt Romney is out: Now, nobody can win

Amid all the punditry about candidates who are absolutely certain to lose, just remember the similar comments about nearly everyone who has gone on to win.

Rogelio V. Solis/AP
Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at Mississippi State University in Starkville, Miss., on Jan. 28, 2015. On Friday, Romney said he will not run for president in 2016.

Now that Mitt Romney has decided not to run, the shape of the 2016 presidential race is clearer. I hate to break it to you, but as of Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2017, the White House will be vacant. All of the remaining potential candidates have flaws that will make it impossible for them to win.

Hillary Clinton is tied to the Clinton administration’s scandals and the Obama administration’s foreign policy. By a two-to-one margin, Americans want the next president to offer different policies from the incumbent administration – similar to figures in the second Bush term. And then there’s age. Born Oct. 26, 1947, she would be 69 years old on Election Day, which would make her the second-oldest president after Ronald Reagan.

 Elizabeth Warren, born June 22, 1949, is almost as old as Clinton. She has won only one election, in liberal Massachusetts, and her progressive politics would travel poorly in a general election. (Think Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.)

Martin O’Malley was governor of Maryland. Even though that state is among the nation’s bluest, his policies were so unpopular that voters picked a Republican successor. Also, he was the inspiration for a character on the classic TV series "The Wire" – which is not a good thing, since the character was an unprincipled double-crosser.

Jeb Bush is named Bush. In opposition to a majority of Republican parents, he supports Common Core.

Marco Rubio has alienated much of the GOP base over the issue of immigration. And Bush is already vacuuming up the Florida campaign money that Rubio needs.

Mike Huckabee is well-liked. He also tends to make the kind of gaffes that would sink candidates who reach the top tier. Even some commentators on the right have taken him to task for his recent comments on women who cuss at work.

Chris Christie flunked his 2012 vice presidential vetting. Bridgegate might not bring him down, other elements of his past would weigh him down. To the delight of opposition researchers, his temper will produce damaging YouTube moments.

Rand Paul has made comments on national security that will alienate much of the GOP base. And he shown terrible judgment in associating both with neo-Confederates and Al Sharpton.

Scott Walker won reelection in 2014 despite a campaign finance scandal. In a presidential race, however, the relevant documents will be subject to scrutiny by a large cadre of more-skillful and better-equipped opposition researchers. The e-mail trove will be like a natural gas well that reopens when a new technology becomes available. Call it political fracking.

Ted Cruz has irked colleagues in the party with counterproductive legislative tactics. Many Republican officials hate him, and they will undercut him in ways both obvious and subtle.

Bobby Jindal is best-known for his disastrous 2009 State of the Union response. He is unpopular back home in Louisiana.

Like Jindal, Rick Perry is still living down an old embarrassment: In his case, the infamous "oops" moment in the 2012 campaign, when he could not remember one of the Cabinet departments that he wanted to scrap. Perhaps it will lower expectations for him. But another problem is that he will no longer be governor of Texas, and will not be able to gather "access money."

John Kasich expanded Medicaid, which might not hurt him in a general election but would cost him conservative support in GOP primaries. And with Christie and Bush, it is hard to see that there will be many votes left in the “establishment bracket.”

Dr. Ben Carson is a world-class surgeon but has never held office or run a large organization.  Every president has had one of those two experiences. His oratory may give him an early boost, but at some point, his lack of qualifications will kick in.

Carly Fiorina, like Dr. Carson, has never won an election, but she has run an organization (HP). That's her problem: HP sacked her for poor performance, and her stewardship opens her up to the kind of "callous clueless rich person" attack that hurt Romney. And at least Romney could make a plausible case that he was successful at Bain.

Others may be waiting in the wings, but they too undoubtedly have fatal liabilities. So we’ll just have to make do without a president, right?

You’ve probably figured out that my premise is a fib, which is the point. As we read all the punditry about candidates who are absolutely certain to lose, we should remember that there have been similar comments about nearly everyone who has gone on to win. In 1979, for instance, journalist Richard Reeves wrote an article titled, “Why Reagan Won’t Make It.” Reagan did make it, of course, and so will one of the flawed human beings who seek the presidency in 2016.

Jack Pitney writes his Looking for Trouble blog exclusively for the Monitor.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Mitt Romney is out: Now, nobody can win
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today