This election made Romney look so awful!

[Redban]

Trump won this election handily despite:

1). Obama's excellent approval ratings
2). Growing economy
3). No support from the establishment (i.e. McCain, Bush, Ryan)

HOWEVER,

Romney in 2012 had none of those hindrances. At that time, he had full support from the party; Obama's approval ratings were bad; and the economy was hardly better than the 2007-2009 economy.

Does this election suggest that Romney lost because he was a bad candidate?

[Cashew]

That and the factTrump performed better among Hispanics, Blacks is pretty embarrassing for the Republican establishment.

[win win]

to be fair he also got to run against the worst presidential candidates in US history

[PresidentTRUMP]

Romney ran against the first AA president ever who was a sitting president. He had no chance of winning, with that said he was an awful candidate just like McCain was also.

[jaichind]

Well, Romney had to run against an incumbant president with an OK economy.  I doubt Trump would win 2012 either.

[Beet]

The unemployment rate was 8% in 2012, and every economic statistic was significantly worse than in 2016. Yet this was the year of populist rage.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Well, Romney had to run against an incumbant president with an OK economy.  I doubt Trump would win 2012 either.

Agreed. If Trump ran against Obama in 2012 he would have lost. Obama would have won PA, MI, WI & IW. Trump would have carried FL and MAYBE OH, Obama may have carried OH though as well. Romney or any other republican would have lost to Obama who was our first AA president and a sitting president.

[Inmate Trump]

Romney ran against the first AA president ever who was a sitting president. He had no chance of winning, with that said he was an awful candidate just like McCain was also.

I agree--Romney had no chance.

Nor did McCain, but don't be mean to my McCain!  I like that guy.

[Redban]

Well, Romney had to run against an incumbant president with an OK economy.  I doubt Trump would win 2012 either.

Incorrect

[Inmate Trump]

Trump wouldn't have won against Obama in 2012. His racist rhetoric would've galvanized African Americans and normal minded people even more than they already were.

[SWE]

More people voted for Romney than Trump.

[Famous Mortimer]

Romney was awful.

[Absolution9]

I think Trump would have lost in 2012 but slightly less than Romney in the electoral college, same or worse in the popular vote.  He might have picked up maybe Ohio, Florida, and Maine 2 but he might not have won any of them either.

In my opinion, if Trump restrains himself and governs decently (fulfils some promises but in a moderate way) he will win big in 2020 (5+ points popular and picks up MN, NV, NH at the least) .  He would keep his Non-college white base and add the never trump and temperament concern voters and possibly do even better with Hispanics.

[Old Man Willow]

Millions of people who voted for Trump would never vote for Romney, look at northeast PA. They voted for Trump because he promised to bring their jobs back. Romney was (or at least was painted as) the guy who their jobs away.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Romney had to run against a sitting president seeking only a second consecutive term for his party.  Remember how rare it is for a party to get kicked out after just one term.

Trump had the benefit of fatigue. Every nominee who's run against the incumbent party after they've served two terms and isn't named Michael Dukakis has won in the postwar era...at least in the electoral vote.

I'm not sure the economy being better matters when comparing an open seat race to a race with an incumbent. The economy was better in 1988 than 1984, and better in 2000 than 1996.

[Absolution9]

Millions of people who voted for Trump would never vote for Romney, look at northeast PA. They voted for Trump because he promised to bring their jobs back. Romney was (or at least was painted as) the guy who their jobs away.

You are wrong about one point, they don't believe Trump will bring back all of their jobs and turn back the clock to 1970 but they do believe or at least hope that they will have a seat at the table and be respected by a Trump administration.  The Dems have ignored these voters and focused on minorities and this is the backlash.  Its more about feeling like someone in power is concerned about them than believing in a miracle (they aren't stupid).

[Redban]

Romney had to run against a sitting president seeking only a second consecutive term for his party.  Remember how rare it is for a party to get kicked out after just one term.

Trump had the benefit of fatigue. Every person who's run against the incumbent party after they've served two terms and isn't named Michael Dukakis has won in the postwar era...at least in the electoral vote.

I'm not sure the economy being better matters when comparing an open seat race to a race with an incumbent. The economy was better in 1988 than 1984, and better in 2000 than 1996.

But it hasn't happened often, so we have a small sample size. Since Truman, the only 2-term Presidents were:

Ike (Nixon lost after)
Reagan (Bush Sr. won)
Clinton (Gore lost)
Bush (McCain lost)
Obama (Hillary lost)

So only 4 times in the past 70 years has the incumbent party lost after their President served 2 terms. 4 times in 70 years makes it difficult to call this phenomenon a trend. It could be coincidence.

[ApatheticAustrian]

nah

we know:

if the general turnout is high, dems win.

if both candidates suck, likely voter-town, aka rurals, vote the shoot ouf of dems.

the more data i read, the calmer i get about this outcome.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Romney had to run against a sitting president seeking only a second consecutive term for his party.  Remember how rare it is for a party to get kicked out after just one term.

Trump had the benefit of fatigue. Every person who's run against the incumbent party after they've served two terms and isn't named Michael Dukakis has won in the postwar era...at least in the electoral vote.

I'm not sure the economy being better matters when comparing an open seat race to a race with an incumbent. The economy was better in 1988 than 1984, and better in 2000 than 1996.

But it hasn't happened often, so we have a small sample size. Since Truman, the only 2-term Presidents were:

Ike (Nixon lost after)
Reagan (Bush Sr. won)
Clinton (Gore lost)
Bush (McCain lost)
Obama (Hillary lost)

So only 4 times in the past 70 years has the incumbent party lost after their President served 2 terms. 4 times in 70 years makes it difficult to call this phenomenon a trend. It could be coincidence.

I was thinking of Carter too who won after two terms of the other party holding the White House, even if it wasn't the same individual.

Like I said, Romney didn't have the benefit of fatigue...George W. Bush's presidency was still very much in peoples' memory.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

nah

we know:

if the general turnout is high, dems win.

if both candidates suck, likely voter-town, aka rurals, vote the shoot ouf of dems.

the more data i read, the calmer i get about this outcome.

Turnout was not down in the swing states or at least most of them.

Turnout was way higher in Florida though. Trump got 500,000 more votes than Mittens.

PA Philly turnout wasn't down either.

Democrats did not lose this election because their voters didn't come out, they lost because Trump racked up huge margins over and above Romney in various parts of these swing states and flipped some key counties. 

[ApatheticAustrian]

Democrats did not lose this election because their voters didn't come out, they lost because Trump racked up huge margins over and above Romney in various parts of these swing states and flipped some key counties. 

i may be wrong but i have read about 10 million democrats didn't vote this time who voted in 2012.

those numbers are still fragile but afaik turnout was down in democratic areas of MI/WI.

red wave with unlikely rep voters...kudos.

i am just not as shocked anymore as i was 2 days ago.....the fundamental change of the elecorate still happens and now republicans control everything...let them show what they can do. (i guess more than dems cause dems are going to compromise .....)

[Stranger in a strange land]

The ultimate lesson should be that Working Class Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all have the same concerns. This is why future Democratic campaigns and appeals need to be class-based, and Bernie and his new organization should lead the way.

[Storebought]

The GM bailout saved Obama in OH and the Midwest in general.

[ApatheticAustrian]

The GM bailout saved Obama in OH and the Midwest in general.

would have saved clinton too if she would have been able to point out that trump was against it and thought about allocating michigan factories to texas.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Millions of people who voted for Trump would never vote for Romney, look at northeast PA. They voted for Trump because he promised to bring their jobs back. Romney was (or at least was painted as) the guy who their jobs away.

You are wrong about one point, they don't believe Trump will bring back all of their jobs and turn back the clock to 1970 but they do believe or at least hope that they will have a seat at the table and be respected by a Trump administration.  The Dems have ignored these voters and focused on minorities and this is the backlash.  Its more about feeling like someone in power is concerned about them than believing in a miracle (they aren't stupid).