Mitt Romney lost to President Obama 51-47% in the 2012 Presidential election. Would things have turned out differently if not for Super Storm Sandy changing the dynamics of the race in the final week? The storm effectively ended the campaign with crucial days to go, wiping out all Romney momentum, and giving Obama a chance to actually pretend to be President for once. MSNBC's Chris Matthews gleefully noted at the time that the storm would turn the election to Obama.

(And some 20 million voters stated on election day it influenced their vote.) Now it looks like Romney may actually run again in 2016 but the depth of the Republican bench is quite deep, unlike the sad state of affairs that was the 2012 primaries. The media can't obsess over his age. Both he and Hillary Clinton were born in 1947. Polls even suggest buyers remorse, and voters now say they would support Romney if they could do it all over again. So what if he does run? The GOP could do a lot worse.

Romney Has Been Vetted: Improving With Age

In the 2008 election I did not care for Romney one bit. He was wooden and a Massachusetts moderate I just couldn't connect with. In 2012, he was my 4th choice after a handful of favorites either declined to run or withdrew before Iowa. I wasn't a huge fan, but he had improved, and the rest of the candidates were uninspiring. By the time the general election had rolled around I was a huge fan. He was confident, passionate, and looked and sounded like a president.

When he talked about economics and foreign policy, you saw a man who knew what he was talking about. He also ran as a conservative.

In 2012, Romney came out against Common Core, long before it became a major hot button issue. He was also strong on illegal immigration. He had ideas for shrinking the government through attrition, a relatively painless way to cut government. He ran as a strong conservative during the primaries, even though he didn't have to. And when most candidates run to the middle in time for the general election, Romney mostly stayed the course.

But he would have plenty of mistakes to correct if he runs again. He ignored social conservatives. When the Chik-fil-a controversy broke out, Romney skipped a chance to connect with voters and stand up against tyranny but instead noted that it was not an issue that was part of his campaign. He failed to influence and excite Christian voters. (Want to win elections? Get these people back in the voting booths.) His choice of Paul Ryan for VP was a misfire. But if Romney could improve as much from 2012 to 2016 as he did from 2008 to 2012, he could be an incredible candidate.

A Potentially Poor Field

In theory, the Republicans will have a lot of candidates to choose from in 2016. The list of candidates is a mile long, but most of those on the establishment and conservative sides of the aisle will end up not running. On the establishment side, Chris Christie doesn't have much else to do, so why not run for President? But when his staff isn't closing bridges on the left, he's burning them on the right. He will probably run, but he makes Romney look like a tea party hero. Jeb Bush is an establishment disaster and the leading proponent of Common Core and amnesty. Huckabee is little better than Bush or Christie, but at least he tries to connect with Christians. Then there is Rick Perry, who is attempting to re-imagine himself as a grassroots conservative these days. On the conservative side, Rand Paul is a sure bet to run, though his recent comments on foreign policy issues are a concern. Does Rubio run if his mentor, Jeb Bush, does? Doubtful. Cruz could be a big threat, but he won't even have a term in the US Senate under his belt. Governor Scott Walker still has to win another tough race in Wisconsin. And if he doesn't win?

Despite all of the potential on the Republican side, the reality remains that most of the conservative stars are relatively young and light on experience. The future may be bright, but it doesn't mean 2016 is. Mitt Romney is clearly better than any of the establishment picks listed. So what happens if the field is filled with Bush, Christie, Perry and Huckabee? No conservatives stepped up in 2012, and a repeat in 2016 is not out of the question. Ironically, it might be conservatives looking towards Romney to be the conservative alternative to the GOP establishment.

"Romney Was Right"

Feel free to google the phrase "Romney was Right." Romney was right about Obamacare. Romney was right about Russia. Romney was right about Iran. Romney was right about Iraq. Romney was right about the Veteran's Administration. Romney was right about corporate taxes forcing companies to leave. Romney was right about Obama's unwillingness to get anything done, anywhere, anytime. Romney. Was. Right. So if the man who lost in 2012 has been right about everything. Then if I were to say "Romney 2016," how could that be so wrong?