Do you wish that Romney had won in 2012?

[Greedo punched first]

I voted for Romney.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

This is an old thread, but newly relevant now that Trump's term is ending.

What do you think?  If Romney had won in 2012, then presumably we don't get a President Trump, so do you now wish he had won?

[HisGrace]

Don't see how the country is not in much better shape civically if he won. Plus he almost assuredly would have handled COVID better resulting in fewer deaths. Even if you like Obama I don't see how anyone can say the gap between he and Romney in quality is bigger than the gap between Romney and Trump.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

[HisGrace]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, Romney was gonna repeal the ACA if he gotten into office and he was a product of Bane Capital that went Bankrupt after 2008. But, since the Senate is missing McCain, Romney has become the maverick of the Senate because he doesn't wear religion on his sleeve, he is a Morman and not beholder of Televangelism like Pat Robertson

[SWE]

My take away from the past four years has not been "wow, I wish someone even more right wing was in charge"

[S019]

My take away from the past four years has not been "wow, I wish someone even more right wing was in charge"

How is Romney more right wing than Trump?

[OSR stands with Israel]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

except Trump did his Birther thing in 2011 not 2013

[RGM2609]

My take away from the past four years has not been "wow, I wish someone even more right wing was in charge"

How is Romney more right wing than Trump?

He is certainly more capable of implementing right wing policies for one thing

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

except Trump did his Birther thing in 2011 not 2013

That's why i said four less years of birtherism, not no birtherism.  Of course, given Romney's ancestry, I suppose Trump could try arguing Mitt was really Mexican and that Mexico hadn't sent us its best and try a primary challenge against a sitting President, but he'd be more likely to just wait until 2020 if he thought he'd be unable to gain traction on the Democratic side.

[Alcibiades]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

except Trump did his Birther thing in 2011 not 2013

That's why i said four less years of birtherism, not no birtherism.  Of course, given Romney's ancestry, I suppose Trump could try arguing Mitt was really Mexican and that Mexico hadn't sent us its best and try a primary challenge against a sitting President, but he'd be more likely to just wait until 2020 if he thought he'd be unable to gain traction on the Democratic side.

I don’t think Dems would ever be willing to give the time of day to a man who had launched a racist conspiracy theory against one of the most popular politicians in their party.

[anthonyjg]

Definitely, definitely not. And there’s no reason to believe Trump or “Trumpism” or whatever would have been prevented if Romney was elected. In 2016, sure, I guess depending how you define the issue, but Trump didn’t create anything so much as he pulled from a reservoir of hate.

[dw93]

No. If I could change any election in my lifetime, it would be 2000. If not that, it'd be 2016.

My respect for Romney the man has gone up significantly over the last few days, but it hasn't changed my opinion of the campaign he ran in 2012, nor does it change the fact that President Romney on some issues would've been a more competent version of Trump and on others a more competent version of George W. Bush.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, I don't.

My respect for Romney the man has gone up significantly over the last few days, but it hasn't changed my opinion of the campaign he ran in 2012, nor does it change the fact that President Romney on some issues would've been a more competent version of Trump and on others a more competent version of George W. Bush.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

except Trump did his Birther thing in 2011 not 2013

That's why i said four less years of birtherism, not no birtherism.  Of course, given Romney's ancestry, I suppose Trump could try arguing Mitt was really Mexican and that Mexico hadn't sent us its best and try a primary challenge against a sitting President, but he'd be more likely to just wait until 2020 if he thought he'd be unable to gain traction on the Democratic side.

I don’t think Dems would ever be willing to give the time of day to a man who had launched a racist conspiracy theory against one of the most popular politicians in their party.

Granted, some would not, but it would be easy enough for many to take it as xenophobic hardball politics. Xenophobia is far more tolerated than racism in this country in all parts of the political spectrum.  Also, if Obama only got one term, he would likely be dismissed as a flash in the pan rather than retaining any great popularity.  He'd likely be as popular in the Democratic Party of 2016 as Carter was in 1984; which wasn't much. Like Carter, Obama would be seen as someone who had tried to lead the Democratic Party in a new direction at failed at the ballot box.

[dw93]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

except Trump did his Birther thing in 2011 not 2013

That's why i said four less years of birtherism, not no birtherism.  Of course, given Romney's ancestry, I suppose Trump could try arguing Mitt was really Mexican and that Mexico hadn't sent us its best and try a primary challenge against a sitting President, but he'd be more likely to just wait until 2020 if he thought he'd be unable to gain traction on the Democratic side.

I don’t think Dems would ever be willing to give the time of day to a man who had launched a racist conspiracy theory against one of the most popular politicians in their party.

Granted, some would not, but it would be easy enough for many to take it as xenophobic hardball politics. Xenophobia is far more tolerated than racism in this country in all parts of the political spectrum.  Also, if Obama only got one term, he would likely be dismissed as a flash in the pan rather than retaining any great popularity.  He'd likely be as popular in the Democratic Party of 2016 as Carter was in 1984; which wasn't much. Like Carter, Obama would be seen as someone who had tried to lead the Democratic Party in a new direction at failed at the ballot box.

I personally don't think a 1 term Obama would be viewed similarly to Carter, Trump is more likely to  suffer that fate at this point, even with some Republicans, than Obama would've. Ford or even Bush 41 would be better analogies for a 1 term Obama, liked, but not liked enough to make a comeback.

[NewYorkExpress]

The only way we don't get a President Trump is if John McCain wins in 2008.

Trump probably would have primaried Romney into oblivion in 2016 if Romney had won in 2012.

[dw93]

The only way we don't get a President Trump is if John McCain wins in 2008.

Trump probably would have primaried Romney into oblivion in 2016 if Romney had won in 2012.

If a Trump primary succeeded against Incumbent President Romney, Hillary Clinton is elected President and Donald Trump never steps foot in the White House, though Clinton likely loses in 2020, making three consecutive one termers in a row.

[NewYorkExpress]

The only way we don't get a President Trump is if John McCain wins in 2008.

Trump probably would have primaried Romney into oblivion in 2016 if Romney had won in 2012.

If a Trump primary succeeded against Incumbent President Romney, Hillary Clinton is elected President and Donald Trump never steps foot in the White House, though Clinton likely loses in 2020, making three consecutive one termers in a row.

Nah, Russia really had it out for Hillary (and possibly Biden too), they would have helped Trump get over 270, as they did IRL.

[Gracile]

No, the seeds of what would eventually become known as "Trumpism" had already been sown and a Romney presidency would only delay the rise of a right-wing populist for a few years. I also shudder thinking of the austerity policies a potential Romney administration would champion, none of which would help the working-class and poor in a time when they needed relief.

[Skunk]

Well, Obamacare will be gone by 2017.

The fact that this didn't happen is why I'm a no.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Well, Obamacare will be gone by 2017.

Yeah, thank God this post aged like milk.

[LtNOWIS]

Yes for me. Instead of our timeline, where we got Trump and had very bad results, we would have an unknown. So I'll take the unknown. Maybe Trump somehow still wins in 2016, maybe someone even worse wins. But I think the odds are that we don't get Trump, and we don't get Trumpism. We still have those currents as they existed in the GOP of old, but they don't consolidate into Trumpism as we know it today.

So yeah. I vote yes, even if it means risking the things I do like about the past 8 years, both personally, professionally, and politically.