Would Romney Have Been Reelected in 2016?

[Skill and Chance]

Let's assume this was the 2012 map.  Romney would also have to win the national PV by 1% or so to win the election.  For now, let's assume a 2.5% uniform national swing:

Romney/Ryan 49.65% 295 EV
Obama/Biden 48.51% 243 EV

If you apply the same swing to all of the 2012 Senate races, only Heitkamp and Tester would actually lose, but there would be recounts in WI, IN, OH and VA, where the Dems would all have <1% margins of victory.  So, surprisingly, the Senate would still be 53D/47R.

In the House, it's pretty clear Republicans would gain seats, and this uniform swing would give them the nationwide PV for the House vote as well.  Let's assume they pick up 8 seats instead of losing 8 for 250R/185D.

How would Romney govern with a split Congress?  Would he be popular?  It seems pretty clear that a Dem senate wouldn't let him touch Obamacare and would be unlikely to sign off on significant tax cuts.  On the other hand, he would have a PV win under his belt which could help on the legitimacy front.  And in 2014, while it's unlikely Democrats would make Senate gains (their only real targets would be Collins and maybe McConnell), it's also quite likely that, as the opposition party in a midterm, they would hold enough of their own seats to retain control.  Also, given the 2016 map, it seems unlikely that Romney would ever have a Republican senate to work with unless he won reelection in a blowout.

So if we assume Scalia still passes away in Feb 2016, it's presumably the same scenario as we saw last year, but with the parties reversed and the Dem senate refusing to confirm any Romney appointee until after the election.  Would this help or hurt Romney?  Would he face a more consolidated populist challenge in the Republican primary, especially given that he would have been unable to repeal Obamacare or pass any abortion restrictions with the Dem senate?  Could he come out of this significantly damaged with the base or even lose the primary?  Which Dems would run?  Obama would be young enough to try and pull a Grover Cleveland if he wanted to.

[Skill and Chance]

I personally think he would, mostly because he would be able to take credit for presiding over the recovery in the economy and would have the all powerful incumbency on his side. It also for these reasons that he is unlikely to be under serious threat of losing the republican nomination.

Also democrats are as a rule are generally not as motivated by the Supreme Court picks as republicans are.

It would interested to see what the 2016 map would look like. Personally I think you see a big swing of affluent suburbanites towards the GOP, since with lack of unified republican control and the economic recovery would prove to these voters that Romney could trusted as a sensible, moderate republican.

I would in contrast expect to see swings in Appalachia and the rust belt towards the democrats, due to the lack of any revival in coal (and unlike Trump, Romney won't bother to pretend that he is trying to bring back the coal jobs) and due to general anti establishment sentiment amongst working class voters.

Hmmm... given that he would be a 1st term incumbent in an OK but not great economy, I think Romney would be favored absent one or both of  a. A strong populist right primary challenge or b. Obama being the Dem nominee again (I think he would easily take the primary if he ran). 


Against a Generic populist Dem, I would have Romney winning like this:

Romney/Ryan 51.5% 321 EV
Hillary Clinton/Sherrod Brown 46.8% 217 EV


If it's Obama running again, I could see something like this:

Obama/Warner 49.5% 295 EV
Romney/Ryan 47.8% 243 EV

Either way, I would then expect 2018 and 2020 to be big wins for the out party with a populist theme, and I agree with you on Appalachia and the Mountain West.  This would have quite an ideological impact as it likely means neither party goes down the identity politics rabbit hole.  If Dems lose, they probably give up on the Dole-Obama states, and if Republicans lose, they probably focus more on winning them back than reversing the substantial Dem margins in the Midwest.

[Skill and Chance]

Honestly, President Romney would've crushed Hillary. He'd have an incumbency advantage, economic improvement, and would be much more favorable than Trump. Hillary would still be bogged down by the email/Benghazi baggage, so Romney plows over her in the general.

President Mitt Romney (R-MA)/Vice President Paul Ryan (R-WI) - 396 EV (54.2%)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) - 142 EV (44.7%)

A Dem Senate pushing back against those investigations would help her cause substantially.  I'm not even sure the public would find out about the private server.  Note that I still have a bigger R win than 2004 for Romney, though.

[Skill and Chance]

Honestly, President Romney would've crushed Hillary. He'd have an incumbency advantage, economic improvement, and would be much more favorable than Trump. Hillary would still be bogged down by the email/Benghazi baggage, so Romney plows over her in the general.

President Mitt Romney (R-MA)/Vice President Paul Ryan (R-WI) - 396 EV (54.2%)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) - 142 EV (44.7%)

A Dem Senate pushing back against those investigations would help her cause substantially.  I'm not even sure the public would find out about the private server.  Note that I still have a bigger R win than 2004 for Romney, though.

I'm not sure if the Senate would be Democratic, I can assume the GOP made gains in 2012, while 2014 was stacked against the Democrats.

You think they would net lose 3 seats in a 2014 midterm with a Republican president?  Even with the bad map for them, Romney would need >55%, maybe >60% approval.