( CNN ) Here we wo n't go again . No Mitt Romney 3.0 . No `` third time 's a charm . '' No invoking Ronald Reagan 's two failed presidential campaigns . No 47 % , car elevators or dog on the roof . No Bain Capital . No Olympics . The media can say goodbye to a plethora of story lines as it prepares to cover the 2016 presidential race . But other than mourning the ( substantial ) loss of some well-tread fodder , the announcement that Mitt Romney will not be running for president a third time does little to change the 2016 outlook for Republicans . There 's still an establishment candidate in Jeb Bush , if he runs . And the rest of the very deep Republican bench -- with the possible exceptions of Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov . Chris Christie -- would have run whether Romney was in it or not . But the absence of Romney in the field is a big loss for Democrats , who were not-so-secretly hoping he 'd throw his hat in one more time . Proof that they were salivating over the opportunity was President Obama 's open mockery of Romney at Thursday night 's speech to House Democrats : . `` We 've got a former presidential candidate on the other side who suddenly is just deeply concerned about poverty . That 's great ! Let 's go ! Come on ! Let 's do something about it ! '' It 's pretty rich that the sitting president who has presided over a widening of the income gap and a worsening of poverty would take a shot at anyone else who tried to offer solutions . And he was n't alone . Obama 's former campaign advisers , as well as New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and plenty others in the media piled on the criticism of Romney 's anti-poverty message . Again , Democrats ca n't brag that their policies have helped . And , they could very well nominate another multimillionaire who has had just as much difficulty explaining her wealth to ordinary Americans in Hillary Clinton . So on its face , it would seem a dangerous gamble to attack Romney for trying to address poverty . But that 's how confident Democrats are that their 2012 narratives successfully and decisively defined Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat . Yes , they are living in glass houses -- and they are stockpiling stones . I 've heard from dozens , if not hundreds of people who watched the Netflix documentary `` Mitt '' and said , if only we 'd seen that Romney in 2012 . But that 's just it -- the Mitt that actually exists , the one we see in the film and know off the campaign trail , is no match for the Mitt that the left has created . It is written . It is fact . It is history . It 's also a shame , because the Mitt that actually exists would have been a formidable candidate and might have been a great president . But it 's a lesson to the rest of the 2016 Republican field : Do n't get defined early , and do n't save your best material for the after-party .
S.E . Cupp : They were very eager for her to run . She said they will have to use the ` ` 47 percent '' and ` ` ' ' '' attack tactics .