Would a Romney win have been better for the democrats?

[chibul]

I often wonder if Romney winning and getting 4 or even 8 years of office would have actually been in a win for democrats with the hindsight of what happened with Donald Trump getting into office and trying to destroy everything Obama ever did and being a far more polarizing figure than Mitt Romney ever was. 2014 was also a complete blood bath for the democrats, perhaps if Romney was president they could have held on to some of those senate seats. Supreme Court justice Scalia would have either retired, or died but as we know the seat got filled by the Republicans anyways.

[dw93]

Obamacare is likely repealed so that by itself is a big reason I'm glad Romney lost. 2014 would've looked like 2018 as far as results are concerned. The Democrats gain in the House and at the state level, but not as much as they did with Trump, so the GOP might still keep the House in this scenario and in 2014, as was the case in '18 the Democrats were defending more seats in the Senate than the GOP, so the GOP likely still nets gains there. Romney ran as a Trump proto type on Immigration, so it's likely the last 3 years would've happened 4 years early in that regard and Romney for better (Russia) and for worse (Middle East) would be more hawkish on Foreign Policy. Paul Ryan's Budget and Medicare and SS proposals become law to.

So overall, I don't think a Romney win would be better for the Democrats or for the Country.

[brucejoel99]

No. Romney/Ryan would've consolidated power in the GOP establishment & given a sense of 'fixing' the country by being able to be more active in Congress with McConnell & Boehner. Along with a carefully crafted tax cut, this would've kept most of middle America happy with stability & the economy generally showing continued steady improvement. The Tea Party's influence would've been lessened & that's what ultimately doomed Obamacare repeal efforts. In all likelihood, Romney would be a moderately popular incumbent &, as such, the Democrats as a political party would've been worse off in today's environment.

[Del Tachi]

I wonder how President Romney would be handling COVID-19

[Mr. Smith]

No.

Trump is the gift that would keep giving if Establishment Dems weren't so scared of their own shadow.

[brucejoel99]

I wonder how President Romney would be handling COVID-19

Much better than Trump has. He's clearly more competent & responsible than even most Republicans, let alone Trump, & would let the folks with medical backgrounds do their job without contradicting them on national TV as much as seemingly possible.

We would've had earlier modeling & preparation for every worst-case scenario like Azar wanted to do, a full assessment of healthcare needs & a plan to deal with shortages & capacity (& actual attempts to follow through on said plans instead of threats to withhold medical supplies from certain states just because their Governors were mean to the President), testing up & running sooner, etc.

In all honesty, when it comes to fighting this pandemic, a President Romney would be a dream right now compared to Trump.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Obamacare is likely repealed so that by itself is a big reason I'm glad Romney lost.

Is this clear? A Romney win could have happened without the Senate flipping.

2014 would've looked like 2018 as far as results are concerned. The Democrats gain in the House and at the state level, but not as much as they did with Trump, so the GOP might still keep the House in this scenario and in 2014, as was the case in '18 the Democrats were defending more seats in the Senate than the GOP, so the GOP likely still nets gains there. Romney ran as a Trump proto type on Immigration, so it's likely the last 3 years would've happened 4 years early in that regard and Romney for better (Russia) and for worse (Middle East) would be more hawkish on Foreign Policy. Paul Ryan's Budget and Medicare and SS proposals become law to.

So overall, I don't think a Romney win would be better for the Democrats or for the Country.

Romney's big pitch was to suburban voters. If he'd won by bringing enough of these on board, couldn't 2014 have been a Democratic urban core-rural backlash rather than a suburban revolt? It's not as if he was anti-NAFTA.

[Del Tachi]

Democrats were awfully overextended 2014 Senate map, so I think Romney's first midterm could have been relatively mild (at least in the Senate) with the GOP still probably on-track to pickup states like AR, LA, SD and maybe MT (Baucus was a very vulnerable incumbent even in OTL). 

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Democrats were awfully overextended 2014 Senate map, so I think Romney's first midterm could have been relatively mild (at least in the Senate) with the GOP still probably on-track to pickup states like AR, LA, SD and maybe MT (Baucus was a very vulnerable incumbent even in OTL). 

Yes, but it's likely they would have lost the House in 2014, so wouldn't have gotten a trifecta in Romney's first term if he didn't win the Senate in 2012.

[Alben Barkley]

Obamacare is likely repealed so that by itself is a big reason I'm glad Romney lost.

Is this clear? A Romney win could have happened without the Senate flipping.

2014 would've looked like 2018 as far as results are concerned. The Democrats gain in the House and at the state level, but not as much as they did with Trump, so the GOP might still keep the House in this scenario and in 2014, as was the case in '18 the Democrats were defending more seats in the Senate than the GOP, so the GOP likely still nets gains there. Romney ran as a Trump proto type on Immigration, so it's likely the last 3 years would've happened 4 years early in that regard and Romney for better (Russia) and for worse (Middle East) would be more hawkish on Foreign Policy. Paul Ryan's Budget and Medicare and SS proposals become law to.

So overall, I don't think a Romney win would be better for the Democrats or for the Country.

Romney's big pitch was to suburban voters. If he'd won by bringing enough of these on board, couldn't 2014 have been a Democratic urban core-rural backlash rather than a suburban revolt? It's not as if he was anti-NAFTA.

To your first question, the narrowest of Romney wins would have resulted in him winning Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If that's happening, the GOP has a better chance of winning those senate seats. And in a more favorable national climate in general, they would have had better shots at winning the Montana and (especially) North Dakota seats as well. They also would be more likely to win the Missouri and (especially) Indiana races, though both would still be plagued by the "legitimate rape" controversy of that year. I think McCaskill probably holds on, considering as it was she won by a large margin even though Obama easily lost the state, but Donnelly might be a different story. Virginia was also close, even closer than Pennsylvania in both the presidential and senate races that year, so Tim Kaine's seat may be in jeopardy too. Hell, Scott Brown might have even held on to his seat in MA.

It's not a guarantee that the GOP would have taken back the Senate, especially if it was close, but they only needed to net 3 seats and there were several paths for them to do that. It really just depends on how Romney is winning and how much the national vote shifts as well. If Romney just ekes out wins in OH, FL, and PA while losing everything else including the popular vote, which Obama still wins by 2-3 points, there's a good chance the Dems retain the senate. If he wins bigger, maybe also winning some combination of VA/CO/NH/IA/NV/WI, as well as the popular vote, there is a better chance the GOP takes back the Senate as well.

To your second question, it certainly would have been interesting if Romney stopped or reversed the trend of Democratic losses in rural areas. Especially if that means Moscow Mitch loses in 2014! But I find it to be kind of unlikely. I think you're giving undue weight to NAFTA; that is not and never was the primary reason most rural voters turned on the Democrats. Plus, Romney's victory probably would have relied at least in part on those trends accelerating against Democrats earlier than they actually did. Maybe not by enough to win all of MI/WI/PA, but enough to probably at least win one or two of them and make the region close in general. (Unless perhaps his path to victory comes solely through the suburbs in VA and CO instead of PA.) Maybe there is some backlash to him in 2014, but I have doubts it would be enough to take back the House, especially if Romney is holding on to the suburbs. As for the "urban core," it's hard to imagine that going any harder against Romney than it has Trump.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Obamacare is likely repealed so that by itself is a big reason I'm glad Romney lost.

Is this clear? A Romney win could have happened without the Senate flipping.

2014 would've looked like 2018 as far as results are concerned. The Democrats gain in the House and at the state level, but not as much as they did with Trump, so the GOP might still keep the House in this scenario and in 2014, as was the case in '18 the Democrats were defending more seats in the Senate than the GOP, so the GOP likely still nets gains there. Romney ran as a Trump proto type on Immigration, so it's likely the last 3 years would've happened 4 years early in that regard and Romney for better (Russia) and for worse (Middle East) would be more hawkish on Foreign Policy. Paul Ryan's Budget and Medicare and SS proposals become law to.

So overall, I don't think a Romney win would be better for the Democrats or for the Country.

Romney's big pitch was to suburban voters. If he'd won by bringing enough of these on board, couldn't 2014 have been a Democratic urban core-rural backlash rather than a suburban revolt? It's not as if he was anti-NAFTA.

To your first question, the narrowest of Romney wins would have resulted in him winning Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If that's happening, the GOP has a better chance of winning those senate seats. And in a more favorable national climate in general, they would have had better shots at winning the Montana and (especially) North Dakota seats as well. They also would be more likely to win the Missouri and (especially) Indiana races, though both would still be plagued by the "legitimate rape" controversy of that year. I think McCaskill probably holds on, considering as it was she won by a large margin even though Obama easily lost the state, but Donnelly might be a different story. Hell, Scott Brown might have even held on to his seat in MA.

There'd have been a better chance, but I don't think it's likely with the narrowest of Romney wins.

I agree ND would have gone, but not FL - Nelson ran 12 points ahead of Obama in 2012. It's more plausible in Ohio were Sherrod Brown was only 3 points ahead and Pennsylvania where Bob Casey was 4 points ahead. It's also plausible to an extent in MT where Tester was 4 points ahead, but I would assume the most likely Romney victory is predicated on growth in the 'burbs, and (if I'm not mistaken) Tester had a lot of strength in rural areas. In MO, McCaskill was 16 points ahead so it wasn't happening there, and in  IN, Donnelly was 6 points ahead. There's an outside chance for Scott Brown considering a Romney overperformance in 'burbs would likely have translated to extra down-ballot success there, but Brown would still have to make up an 8 point deficit. Romney's path of least resistance did not involve such gains.

It's not a guarantee that the GOP would have taken back the Senate, especially if it was close, but they only needed to net 3 seats and there were several paths for them to do that. It really just depends on how Romney is winning and how much the national vote shifts as well. If Romney just ekes out wins in OH, FL, and PA while losing everything else including the popular vote, which Obama still wins by 2-3 points, there's a good chance the Dems retain the senate. If he wins bigger, maybe also winning some combination of VA/CO/NH/IA/NV/WI, as well as the popular vote, there is a better chance the GOP takes back the Senate as well.

Agreed. Their path to a Senate majority would probably be ND, OH, PA, IN and MT (although there's probably a funny scenario where MT still votes Democratic and MA is the tipping point Senate seat).

To your second question, it certainly would have been interesting if Romney stopped or reversed the trend of Democratic losses in rural areas. Especially if that means Moscow Mitch loses in 2014! But I find it to be kind of unlikely. I think you're giving undue weight to NAFTA; that is not and never was the primary reason most rural voters turned on the Democrats.

It wasn't for all, but it might have been enough to reverse the overall trend. The narrative 'Romney is an elitist' would have had more appeal there just as it did in Obama's 2012 campaign.

Plus, Romney's victory probably would have relied at least in part on those trends accelerating against Democrats earlier than they actually did. Maybe not by enough to win all of MI/WI/PA, but enough to probably at least win one or two of them and make the region close in general. Maybe there is some backlash to him in 2014, but I have doubts it would be enough to take back the House, especially if Romney is holding on to the suburbs. As for the "urban core," it's hard to imagine that going any harder against Romney than it has Trump.

There is a second path to victory where he overperforms in rural areas despite targeting the suburbs, I suppose. I doubt the backlash in a Romney midterm would be as big as the one Trump saw, but midterms tend to result in the governing party losing control of the House these days, so I'd consider it at least slightly more likely than not that he'd lose the House. However, if he went on to win a second term in 2016, he'd probably get his first trifecta then.

[Grassroots]

No. Unlike Trump, Romney was able to get things done, plus he wasn't under investigation and wouldn't have been.

[Medal506]

I wonder how President Romney would be handling COVID-19

It would have come in the end of his second term. He would have done the same thing as Trump with regards to the state of emergency but he would not have taken one side or another in the mask mandate debate. In general I think he would have endorsed reopening the country after April 2020 though and Paul Ryan likely would be the GOP nominee for president in 2020 up against someone like Biden or Clinton depending on who the dem nominee was in 2016. If Obama was the nominee and lost to Romney twice then probably Clinton. If Clinton was the nominee though (the more likely scenario) probably Biden.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No R win is a victory for Ds Romney would accelerated Roe being overturned with pro life Judges, he could of gotten 2T

We must stop DeSantis if he wins he can have 60 Approvals like he did in FL but wait rul Biden campaign and scrutinize DeSantis he defeated ever debator Palin, Ryan and Trump

[Del Tachi]

I think an interesting scenario is Romney serving two terms from 2013-21.  This places the double-whammy of Covid/Floyd in the final year of his second term, and I think Romney is the exact type of person who would see the opportunity in these events to immortalize his legacy.  His dad was George Romney, after all. 

Also interesting is that I see Obama as someone keen to make a second run at the White House, especially after a narrow defeat in 2012.  Maybe there was a pre-existing gentleman's agreement between Obama and Clinton to keep 2016 open for her, but Clinton ITTL probably struggles more vs Sanders and the divided Democrats let Romney narrowly win a second term.  Obama then has the option to run again in 2020, which I think he'd win vs either Paul Ryan or Trump.  Obama 2.0 is back in office come January 2021, and he maybe has much more appetite to deliver on his promise than he did in 2009.