Too often, Romney spoke in political clichés and platitudes thus failing to move people. He appears to rely solely on his experience without realizing there are many areas where he has no practical experience and needs to supplement his lack of experience with education.
From the WSJ:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told a group of donors on Friday that he is considering a White House bid in 2016, a move that could scramble the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
The remarks confirm months of speculation that the GOP’s nominee from 2012, who was also a top 2008 contender, is seriously weighing a third White House bid.
Mr. Romney’s comments to donors at a meeting in New York City came at a provocative moment—just as other Republicans are taking concrete steps to pursue the nomination. Many top GOP donors have started to rally behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, setting up a potential clash between the party’s last standard-bearer and the most storied family in Republican politics.
Romney had his 15 minutes of fame. It's time to step aside and let some newer faces in. He was unable to unseat a sitting president who had botched the economy, divided the country racially, provoked class warfare, and who had screwed up foreign policy and alienated our allies while encouraging our enemies.
The election was his to win or lose, and he lost it by shooting off his mouth with stupid stuff like the 47% remark, the self-deportation remark, and the criticism of the Olympics.
Americans yearn for a leader they can relate to, someone glamorous and down to earth, rich and folksy, tough yet sensitive. It's an impossible task. But some pretty face will come along who has been marketed exactly right. In '92 it was Clinton, a buffoon and a huckster. In '16 it will be Clinton, a buffoon and a huckster with double the ambition of her husband.
If Romney gives it a second shot, he'll be just as burdened over his expected refusal to disclose his income as he was in 2012, and in the process at least partly surrender a valid complaint about Obama and his supporting cast of Democrats since the President promised the most transparent administration in history even after he won his first presidential election.
Despite the fact that Nixon lost to JFK in the 1960 presidential race while returning to a presidential campaign to win the 1968 presidential election, in general, once a presidential candidate loses a presidential election that candidate is a forever deemed a presidential loser by a lot of voters, and that in itself could be difficult for Romney to overcome.
This is a man who was unable to beat a President in the last election when many people were very unhappy due to the economy. Incumbent Presidents have a really tough time winning when the economy is down, but even with all of the unhappiness among voters Mitt Romney still couldn't pull off a victory. And if he couldn't do it back in 2012 when the economy was in relatively poor shape, what would make anyone think that he can pull off a victory in 2016 when the economy will most likely be in much better shape? The "47%" remark isn't going to help him, either. He never adequately explained or settled that, and it will come back once again to haunt him. Best to start off with a fresh candidate who doesn't have all that baggage.
The Republicans would have a much better chance of winning the White House with someone new to presidential politics who has campaigned successfully and has a proven track record. In that regard, someone like Scott Walker comes to mind.