2016: Romney versus Sanders

[UkrainianRepublican]

Let's say that Romney decides not to run in 2008, instead focusing on getting elected in MA-2006 Governoral Race. Somehow he succeeds to win by a squeaker, something like  48.5-48.4.
Yes, I know that Patrick won by 19 points IRL, but let's assume that someone else than Patrick is nomiated and Romney wins by a thread.
Romney skips 2012 race, letting Santorum or Gingrich be a sacrificial lambs, and runs as establishment candidate in 2016. Similiarly to 2020 Dem Primaries everyone drops out and endorses Romney when Donald Trump scores first shocking victories in SC and NH. Romney absolutely beats Trump on Super-Tuesday and Super-Thursday, clinching nomination in late May. On Democrat side Bernie Sanders wins nomination in a huge upset, defeating former First Lady and Sec of State Hillary Clinton.

How would race go? What would be the results? Will Romney win a popular vote if he wins?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

My instinct is that Romney has the slight advantage in both the PV and the electoral college.

[NewYorkExpress]

2004 Map plus Ohio and Iowa for Sanders, and that's enough to give him the Presidency with 290 Electoral Votes.

[Alben Barkley]

A normal Republican would have an advantage against a normal Democrat in 2016 because it’s hard for a party to win three terms in a row alone. If it’s Romney vs. Sanders, it should be an EASY win for Romney.

[Alben Barkley]

2004 Map plus Ohio and Iowa for Sanders, and that's enough to give him the Presidency with 290 Electoral Votes.

That is not the 2004 map, in which NV, CO, and NM went R. It’s the 2012 map minus Florida and Virginia.

[Roll Roons]

A normal Republican would have an advantage against a normal Democrat in 2016 because it’s hard for a party to win three terms in a row alone. If it’s Romney vs. Sanders, it should be an EASY win for Romney.

I think Romney might even have a shot at Connecticut and Jersey, since he was an excellent fit for wealthy suburban voters.

[NewYorkExpress]

2004 Map plus Ohio and Iowa for Sanders, and that's enough to give him the Presidency with 290 Electoral Votes.

That is not the 2004 map, in which NV, CO, and NM went R. It’s the 2012 map minus Florida and Virginia.

My bad. 2004 seems like a lifetime ago, I'm afraid.

[UkrainianRepublican]

A normal Republican would have an advantage against a normal Democrat in 2016 because it’s hard for a party to win three terms in a row alone. If it’s Romney vs. Sanders, it should be an EASY win for Romney.

IMO, I think Romney has a shot on Colorado in this scenario. 2016 was probably the last chance for GOP to regroup&rebrand itself  in CO,VA,NV. Now those states are safely in D column until next realignment

[Alben Barkley]

A normal Republican would have an advantage against a normal Democrat in 2016 because it’s hard for a party to win three terms in a row alone. If it’s Romney vs. Sanders, it should be an EASY win for Romney.

IMO, I think Romney has a shot on Colorado in this scenario. 2016 was probably the last chance for GOP to regroup&rebrand itself  in CO,VA,NV. Now those states are safely in D column until next realignment

Yeah, possibly. I think Bernie might have been a good enough fit for CO to edge it out (unlike NV and especially VA) but I honestly am not sure. Struggled on whether to flip it or not when making the map. Probably would have been one of the closest states.

[Sir Mohamed]

2016 was a change election; Romney would have lost because he represented the status-quo and Sanders was the "outsider". Sanders doesn't do well in the South and parts of the South West (remember his coalition from then was different from 2020, ergo less Hispanic support). Sanders wins a relatively close election.

✓ Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)/Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ): 291 EVs.; 49.5%
Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA)/Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL): 247 EVs.; 47.0%

[Spark]

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) / Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) - 290 EVs, 50%
Former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) / Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) - 248 EVs, 48%

I do think Sanders would have won due to populist positions on trade to win the Rust Belt. A lot of Evangelicals would sit this one out due to Romney being a Mormon.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Three things.
1) 2016 was not inherently a "change election", especially with butterflies, and with an incumbent running. If it is not an open seat the election tends to be more a referendum on the incumbent than a debate over new ideas. History shows that such referendums are hard to lose as the cards are stacked to some degree in the incumbent's favor.
2) Romney would have incument advantage, and this would be critical for him, as it would be his single biggest advantage over Sanders.
3) Evangelicals would not have particularly low turnout b/c Romney is Mormon - they'd turn out as usual for the Republican ticket.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Be careful of applying RL 2016 conditions with an eye on RL 2020 in a scenario where 2016 would likely be wildly different and our RL 2020 would be very much alien.

[UkrainianRepublican]

Three things.
1) 2016 was not inherently a "change election", especially with butterflies, and with an incumbent running. If it is not an open seat the election tends to be more a referendum on the incumbent than a debate over new ideas. History shows that such referendums are hard to lose as the cards are stacked to some degree in the incumbent's favor.
2) Romney would have incument advantage, and this would be critical for him, as it would be his single biggest advantage over Sanders.
3) Evangelicals would not have particularly low turnout b/c Romney is Mormon - they'd turn out as usual for the Republican ticket.

He isn't an incumbent. Obama had 2 terms, just that Romney ran in 2016 instead of 2012 after serving 2 terms inMA governorship and sitting 5 years until 2016

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Three things.
1) 2016 was not inherently a "change election", especially with butterflies, and with an incumbent running. If it is not an open seat the election tends to be more a referendum on the incumbent than a debate over new ideas. History shows that such referendums are hard to lose as the cards are stacked to some degree in the incumbent's favor.
2) Romney would have incument advantage, and this would be critical for him, as it would be his single biggest advantage over Sanders.
3) Evangelicals would not have particularly low turnout b/c Romney is Mormon - they'd turn out as usual for the Republican ticket.

He isn't an incumbent. Obama had 2 terms, just that Romney ran in 2016 instead of 2012 after serving 2 terms inMA governorship and sitting 5 years until 2016

Ah.
Sorry for insufficient comprehension.
In that case I still think Romney is favored due to fundamentals, but the advantage makes for barely anything because of how close the race is.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

This is tricky, since although Romney was a poor candidate IRL in 2012, this current timeline changes alot-he stays above the fray.


WI, MN, and CO would be fairly close but lean Sanders, PA is tilt Sanders. OH, IA, VA, NV and NH are tilt Romney and Romney cleans up in AZ, GA, NC, and FL.

That said Bernie has the advantage of being more moderate on guns and immigration than Hillary was, which saves him in rural areas.

[538Electoral]

Optimistic Romney case:

334-204

Optimistic Sanders case:

333-205

[President Biden Democrat]

Romney would likely lose to Sanders. Most Republican candidates would have lost in 2016, against Clinton. Sanders overall is a stronger candidate than she is. I'd see Sanders winning by a margin of 303 electoral votes by winning every state Obama won in 2012, except for Florida.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Romney would beat him easily. Sanders’ history with socialist political organisations and his unapologetically left wing agenda would alienate many swing voters, especially considering Romney is a rather inoffensive and mainstream Republican and an incumbent. I honestly think a scenario in which he even manages to obtain the Democratic nomination is a massive stretch (The party of liberalism wants a liberal to represent them, not a DemSoc).

[Alben Barkley]

Romney would beat him easily. Sanders’ history with socialist political organisations and his unapologetically left wing agenda would alienate many swing voters, especially considering Romney is a rather inoffensive and mainstream Republican and an incumbent. I honestly think a scenario in which he even manages to obtain the Democratic nomination is a massive stretch (The party of liberalism wants a liberal to represent them, not a DemSoc).

Thank you. If only many “progressives” understood this as well. But you can blame the GOP for it: By redefining “socialism” as “any time the government does anything,” they have confused a hell of a lot of people. And radicalized some. Bernie knew and exploited this. He was a trojan horse trying to infiltrate the Demoratic Party (which he had never been a member of) and turn it into a socialist rather than liberal party by pretending his “socialism” wasn’t as radical as it sounded, which only seemed plausible to many because of the years of GOP rhetoric denouncing what to most of the modern world is common sense liberalism as radical socialism. Basically, they cried wolf too many times.

He is, however, indeed a man who has a history with at the very least expressing sympathy to socialist/communist governments and causes — JFK going after Casto made him physically ill, he loves Venezeuela and Chavez, he honeymooned in the USSR, etc. — and the GOP absolutely would have taken advantage of this to turn off every single moderate suburbanite in the country who is leaning towards Biden today. That would have just been easier with Romney as their nominee than Trump.

The diehard supporters Bernie acquired — i.e. the “Chapo Trap House” types — picked up on what he REALLY represented much as the alt-right picked up on what Trump was REALLY saying. While unassuming liberals and conservatives in both camps didn’t see what was going on and fell for the idea that these candidates weren’t really as nuts as the opposition let on.

The fact that the Democrats soundly rejected their attempted populist demogague hijacker twice while the Republicans fully embraced theirs is yet another reason this party is vastly superior, however.

[Alben Barkley]

Romney would likely lose to Sanders. Most Republican candidates would have lost in 2016, against Clinton. Sanders overall is a stronger candidate than she is. I'd see Sanders winning by a margin of 303 electoral votes by winning every state Obama won in 2012, except for Florida.

While yes, Bernie would be a particularly horrible fit for Florida, he wouldn’t do much better in other swing states.

I am amazed this myth that Bernie somehow had some kind of special appeal to the rust belt or the WWC persists even though he was decisively defeated by these voters in these places in the primaries this year. It is more clear than ever that his relative strengths there in 2016 were almost exclusively the result of “Not Hillary” voters.

[President Biden Democrat]

Romney would likely lose to Sanders. Most Republican candidates would have lost in 2016, against Clinton. Sanders overall is a stronger candidate than she is. I'd see Sanders winning by a margin of 303 electoral votes by winning every state Obama won in 2012, except for Florida.

While yes, Bernie would be a particularly horrible fit for Florida, he wouldn’t do much better in other swing states.

I am amazed this myth that Bernie somehow had some kind of special appeal to the rust belt or the WWC persists even though he was decisively defeated by these voters in these places in the primaries this year. It is more clear than ever that his relative strengths there in 2016 were almost exclusively the result of “Not Hillary” voters.

Bernie's approval is definitely being overstated but Romney would not be able to beat him. I don't think that Romney would be able to win the midwest. Trump who had a lot of appeal to the midwest won in those states by less than 1 percent. I think that Bernie would have won. He also would have been able to hold on to Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Nevada as well. It'd be a close election but Bernie would beat Romney.

[McGarnagle]

Sanders would have won.

Romney, at the time, had little to none of the admiration he currently gets from the center-leaning right and center-left. Romney's history at Bain would be perfect for Sanders' narrative that many among the ultra-wealthy are greedy and want to take everything from the working class, leaving them only scraps. Romney would likely say something like he said on the "47%" tape and that would be the ballgame.

[Roll Roons]

Romney would likely lose to Sanders. Most Republican candidates would have lost in 2016, against Clinton. Sanders overall is a stronger candidate than she is. I'd see Sanders winning by a margin of 303 electoral votes by winning every state Obama won in 2012, except for Florida.

While yes, Bernie would be a particularly horrible fit for Florida, he wouldn’t do much better in other swing states.

I am amazed this myth that Bernie somehow had some kind of special appeal to the rust belt or the WWC persists even though he was decisively defeated by these voters in these places in the primaries this year. It is more clear than ever that his relative strengths there in 2016 were almost exclusively the result of “Not Hillary” voters.

Bernie's approval is definitely being overstated but Romney would not be able to beat him. I don't think that Romney would be able to win the midwest. Trump who had a lot of appeal to the midwest won in those states by less than 1 percent. I think that Bernie would have won. He also would have been able to hold on to Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Nevada as well. It'd be a close election but Bernie would beat Romney.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the Midwestern swing in 2016 was more from dislike towards Hillary than any particular affinity for Trump, as well as Obama's exceptional strength in the region. Wisconsin in particular was extremely close in 2000 and 2004. The GOP war machine would have had metric tons of ammo to go after Sanders, and they could easily make up the gap. In Pennsylvania, Romney would have much more appeal to moderate suburbanites in Bucks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery. He likely would have only won the former two, but also stopped the bleeding enough to push him over the top.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Romney: 258
Sanders: 253
Toss-up: 27 (OH and CO, I can't pick which way they would go)
R flips from 2012: NH, VA, FL, NV


I think the populist, anti-Wall Street campaign Sanders ran in 2016 would have been particularly effective against Romney. Basically, Sanders would get to run an anti-establishment campaign, because even though he represented the party in power, Romney is the personification of the American elite: WASP (or WASM I guess), wealthy, worked in the finance industry, perfectly slicked hair and a LinkedIn photo smile. I think the Sanders campaign would have taken a very populist turn, and it would have held its primary coalition of young leftists and the WWC.

But this kind of brash populism will be countered by the fact that he's a socialist, and older people will break heavily for Romney. Many upscale suburban democrats would either sit this election out, or vote for Romney. In Florida, Bernie would be DOA. I think Connecticut would get dangerously close, and New Jersey will be competitive. And if the Sanders campaign becomes aggressively populist, it will turn off many liberals. And of course, the Romney campaign would be much better financed.