If Romney had ran again in 2016, could he have beaten Trump?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Let's say Romney did decide he was going to run again that December/January instead of bowing out, could he have forced Jeb out of the race and consolidate the more moderate forces in the party and went on to defeat Trump in the primaries?

I could definitely have seen him winning New Hampshire and using that momentum.

[Pericles]

I'm not sure if he would have been strong enough of a candidate to win. The establishment may still have sided with Jeb. On the other hand, most polls showed him firmly in the lead, and he would be able to attract Romney donors. He would also more effectively counter Trump, he beat outsider candidates like him in 2012 and he has business experience too. Trump could easily paint him as a 'loser' and Romney will find his accepting Trump's endorsement in 2012 coming back to bite him, as it did after his speech. Still, even a strong second in New Hampshire, which is likely given his strength there, would allow him to consolidate the anti-Trump vote and given at that time Trump was only getting around 35% at the time he could be beaten. It all depends on whether Romney can survive and be a contender by New Hampshire.

[AGA]

I doubt it. The establishment vote would have been very split at that point.

[Sumner 1868]

Of course not.

[Saint Milei]

If you are asking this question, you clearly do not understand how and why Trump won.

[Mr. Morden]

Romney would have had a decent shot at winning both NH and NV, which robs Trump of two of his first three victories.  As I wrote in October:

Since Romney's pretty strong in NH, you could easily have Cruz winning Iowa and Romney winning New Hampshire, which leads to Trump not winning the nomination IMHO.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you are asking this question, you clearly do not understand how and why Trump won.

Trump Deniers never quit.

Romney was viewed as a loser and a choke artist.  He never fully shook that image.  He also had the image of a compromise candidate; someone who was OK with everybody, but who excited nobody.  Marco Rubio was this year's Romney.  It wasn't the year for that kind of candidate.

[Ljube]

Of course not.

[Mister Mets]

Sure.

Part of it is the strength in New Hampshire, which could have denied Trump a win in a key state.

He'd also have more name recognition than the other people Trump beat, giving him an edge the people Trump beat lacked.

[Cruzcrew]

Perhaps only based on an early state advantage with Cruz already winning Iowa, Romney winning New Hampshire and Mormon heavy Nevada that creates momentum for him and against Trump. Otherwise, no he couldn't have beaten Trump.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Trump was a very strong candidate and totally tapped into the psyches of the Republican base. Romney would have had more of a shot then any of the other establishment candidates, but I think Trump was favoured from the start and no one really realized.

[Phony Moderate]

As has been said, Gilmore could have had an outside chance with more media coverage of his campaign.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Why would Romney be able to beat him when stronger GOP candidates couldn't?

[Mr. Morden]

Why would Romney be able to beat him when stronger GOP candidates couldn't?

Because Romney would be strong in two out of three of Trump's first three victories (NH and NV).  What non-Trump candidates were stronger in those states?

I'm not even saying that Romney would have won the nomination.  Just that, by robbing Trump of early victories, he might have derailed the Trump train, and thrown the nomination to someone else.  Might very well have been Cruz.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Why would Romney be able to beat him when stronger GOP candidates couldn't?

Because Romney would be strong in two out of three of Trump's first three victories (NH and NV).  What non-Trump candidates were stronger in those states?

I'm not even saying that Romney would have won the nomination.  Just that, by robbing Trump of early victories, he might have derailed the Trump train, and thrown the nomination to someone else.  Might very well have been Cruz.

Those states wouldn't have held their elections in a vacuum. Romney would've had to go through a monthslong campaign first. Both Trump and the other establishment candidates would've attacked him relentlessly.  Sorry, but there was no room for a failed nominee in the 2016 Republican primaries just like there wasn't room for one in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

If you really want to me to focus on the individual states, however, okay...in New Hampshire, what makes you think Romney wouldn't have just split the establishment vote worse than it already was, thus allowing Trump to get a bigger victory?

[TomC]

If it cleared the field a lot earlier and got down to a choice of one of the two, maybe.

[rbt48]

Romney's only chance would have been if he had been the only candidate in the field other than Trump.  Then, he might have been able to have prevailed in enough early primaries to gain momentum and get the nomination.  I think just adding one other establishment candidate to the mix and Trump would have prevailed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why would Romney be able to beat him when stronger GOP candidates couldn't?

Because Romney would be strong in two out of three of Trump's first three victories (NH and NV).  What non-Trump candidates were stronger in those states?

I'm not even saying that Romney would have won the nomination.  Just that, by robbing Trump of early victories, he might have derailed the Trump train, and thrown the nomination to someone else.  Might very well have been Cruz.

If Trump could THRASH Marco Rubio in Florida, why couldn't he been Romney in New Hampshire?

[Mr. Morden]

If you really want to me to focus on the individual states, however, okay...in New Hampshire, what makes you think Romney wouldn't have just split the establishment vote worse than it already was, thus allowing Trump to get a bigger victory?

I’m not sure to what extent the “establishment” / “non-establishment” categories really operate as separate “lanes” in the way that many seem to think they do.  For all we know, Romney could have gotten some of his support from the more secular voters backing Trump.

But OK, sure, presumably more of Romney’s support would have come from voters who IRL backed non-Trump candidates than from voters who backed Trump.  If every single one of the candidates stayed in the race and you added Romney into the mix as well, then yes, I agree that Trump would still win.  But no non-Trump candidate stood out from the pack in NH IRL.  If you had Romney in there and he was getting a decent amount of support in the polls, he might have squeezed out some of the other candidates, and either gotten them to drop out, or caused some of their voters to tactically vote for him.

[Mr. Morden]

Why would Romney be able to beat him when stronger GOP candidates couldn't?

Because Romney would be strong in two out of three of Trump's first three victories (NH and NV).  What non-Trump candidates were stronger in those states?

I'm not even saying that Romney would have won the nomination.  Just that, by robbing Trump of early victories, he might have derailed the Trump train, and thrown the nomination to someone else.  Might very well have been Cruz.

If Trump could THRASH Marco Rubio in Florida, why couldn't he been Romney in New Hampshire?

He *could* have.  I’m not saying it would be a slam dunk.  But I’m not sure if he would have or not.

By the time of the Florida primary, the choice was pretty much between Trump and Brokered Convention.  It’s not clear that the dynamic would have been the same when you’re talking about a race taking place before Trump had won any victories at all.