The Fix looks at recent national polls and finds Mitt Romney “performs worse than he did in 2012 among almost every demographic tested (for which we have comparisons between the two polls and his 2012 showing). And that’s a comparison to an election that he lost.”

“He beat President Obama among independents by five points in 2012; he now trails among them by eight or nine points, depending on which poll you choose (we prefer WaPo-ABC). He won whites by 20 points in 2012; he now leads by just four or five points. He won males by seven points; he’s now trailing by 7-12 points. And on and on.”

The Center for Public Integrity “in recent days attempted to contact roughly 90 top Romney fundraisers from his most recent presidential run, including every federal lobbyist who helped him raise $30,000 or more.”

“The vast majority willing to speak on the record say they haven’t decided whom to support in 2016. Almost all of these fundraisers said they’re wrestling with conflicting loyalties to Romney, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and other potential Republican hopefuls such as Sens. Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham and Govs. Mike Pence, Scott Walker and Chris Christie.”

“Outlining his possible rationale for a third presidential bid, Mitt Romney said Wednesday night that political leaders in both parties are failing to address the nation’s most pressing problems — climate change, poverty and education reform, among them — as he acknowledged lessons learned from his failed 2012 presidential campaign,” the AP reports.

“While hitting familiar Republican points criticizing the size of the federal debt, Romney at times sounded like a Democrat, calling for President Obama and other leaders in Washington to act on common liberal priorities such as climate change, poverty and education… His evolving platform comes as he works to reshape his image after consecutive presidential defeats.”

“Let me state unequivocally that I have no intention of running for U.S. Senator of Massachusetts.”

— Mitt Romney, quoted by CBS News.

“Mitt Romney made it clear publicly on Friday night what he has spent the last week conveying in private to Republicans across the country: He is considering another presidential campaign,” the New York Times reports. “He said the 2016 campaign should center on making the world safer, offering opportunity for all Americans and lifting people out of poverty.”

Said Romney: “Under President Obama the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty in America than ever before.”

Associated Press: “Romney is offering a rare glimpse of his softer side as he marches toward an unlikely third presidential bid focused on poverty and the middle class.”

Alex Massie: “The suggestion Mitt Romney might make another run for the Presidency of the United States made me think of a line from one of my father’s novels: ‘There’s nothing so sad as the memory of lost fucks.’ There’s a measure of wistful sadness but also some wry resignation.”

“The obvious reaction is that, hey Mittens, third time ain’t no charm. Because that’s the way it’s supposed to work these days. You’re supposed to accept being beaten, supposed to retire gracefully from the fray, supposed to recognise it’s someone else’s turn. This ain’t Richard Nixon’s America and it’s not Ronald Reagan’s either.”

“And yet, in one sense, why should Romney accept it is someone else’s turn? It is not as though the Republican party is over-freighted with stars likely to defeat Hillary Clinton. Who can blame Romney for thinking he’s got as good a shot as any of these other schlubs?”

Politico: “In interviews this week with nearly a dozen committee members — the people who comprise the most active and powerful core of the party apparatus — nearly all expressed deep skepticism about a third Romney White House bid. The sentiment was unambigious: The GOP needs to find a new candidate to carry the party past its painful 2012 loss and back to the White House.”

Peggy Noonan: “There was something known as Reaganism. It was a real movement within the party and then the nation. Reaganism had meaning. You knew what you were voting for. It was a philosophy that people understood. Philosophies are powerful. They carry you, and if they are right and pertinent to the moment they make you inevitable.”

“There is no such thing as Romneyism and there never will be. Mr. Romney has never encompassed a philosophical world. He has never become the symbol of an attitude toward government, or an approach to freedom or fairness. ‘Romneyism’ is just ‘Mitt should be president.’ That is not enough.”