Mitt Romney says he won’t do it again. After two failed presidential runs, Romney seems to be giving his final answer to the oft-asked question of whether he’ll try once more.

“No, no, no,” he told the New York Times.

“I’m not running for president in 2016,” he told CNN.

“We’re so ready to watch the next person step up and take that nomination,” his wife told Fox News.

But still, some are considering Romney to be the 2016 Republican front-runner. His advisors hear the request every day from former donors, the grass roots, and supporters. And the Netflix original documentary, “Mitt,” has political insiders and Romney followers all abuzz about what the future might hold.

We took the question to Mormons in Boston who followed Romney’s previous presidential attempts closely. All Bostonians interviewed currently live in the Cambridge Massachusetts Stake, where Romney once served as stake president.


Picture 1 of 6

Mitt Romney waves to supporters after voting in Belmont, Mass. on Super Tuesday in 2012. Photo courtesy Hyunah Jang/Boston University News Service.

Spencer Nam, Watertown

There are plenty of examples in history where politicians have come back multiple times -- on both sides of the political spectrum. At the turn of the century William Jennings Bryan ran four times and never got more than 20% of the vote, but he kept running. Richard Nixon lost to Kennedy, waited eight years, then came back and won. I think it’ll be unfortunate if Mitt keeps running if it’s simply a medal he wants to get -- then it would be out of line. But the fact is, a lot of predictions he made during his campaign have turned out to be true. If he feels like he’s still the best person to solve these problems, I don’t have any problem with him running.

I do think he still has some issues with being likeable. People who know him at a church level or who have even just met him tend to like him a lot, but there are challenges when people haven’t seen him outside of TV scripts. He comes across as detached. But I think he would be fantastic. He would be a great compromiser. He’s a great negotiator, and I think that’s something that came across negatively during the primaries. The Democrats pounded on him for being wishy washy. I know he’s very true to his core beliefs, but he’s willing to make deals and to move things forward. I think he would be especially good in this divided political landscape as somebody who can talk to both sides and negotiate to make everybody happy. He’s better than our current President of the United States or anybody on the other side who may be running.

Leave a Reply

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