2016: John Kerry vs. Mitt Romney

[President Johnson]

The two most recent challengers losing to an incumbent president face off against each other in the 2016 election. What happens?

[Agonized-Statism]

Secretary of State John Kerry (D-MA) / Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) / Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM) ✓

I see two tone deaf campaigns and low turnout. Romney forms his campaign around the 2012 Republican autopsy, missing out on the populist wave, while Kerry is Hillary with even less progressive appeal. Both pick up token running mates. It's very close but I give Romney a narrow edge due to Democratic voter fatigue.

[Alben Barkley]

Guess:

Sec. John Kerry (D-MA): 279 EVs, 50%
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA): 259 EVs, 48%

Not sure who the VP picks would be. Perhaps for Kerry someone like Klobuchar, Baldwin, even McCaskill? I think he’d go with a woman from the heartland.

Romney might go with Haley, Rubio, or Martinez. He’d take the GOP autopsy seriously and want to expand his appeal to women and minorities.

Unfortunately for him, that wouldn’t help him much in the rust belt, where Kerry would not suffer as Hillary did (already won it once). Republican trends might help Romney edge out OH and IA, and he wins the Florida coin toss (especially with a running mate like Rubio, Martinez, or Haley), but he doesn’t win PA, MI, WI, or MN. And Democratic trends keep states like VA and CO in the Democratic column, even though Romney is a better fit for them than Trump was. Kerry’s strength in New England allows him to hold on to NH and ME-02. Romney’s lack of appeal to WWC voters compared to Trump prevents him from having the same massive electoral college advantage, so he loses even though he does better than Trump in the popular vote.

Ultimately, both candidates would be seen as generic stand-ins for their parties. And I think Kerry wins just on the strength of Obama’s popularity and the improving economy. Not impossible Romney wins due to fatigue though, would likely be a close one either way. Regardless, the campaign would have been a lot more boring than the actual 2016 campaign, with neither candidate arousing nearly as many passionate supporters or haters as Hillary and Trump did. We’d probably be a lot better off for it now, regardless of who won.

[Chips]

2016 was probably set to be a year in which Republicans take the White House after two years of Obama. Generic D vs. Generic R in 2016 probably results in the Republican nominee winning.

Romney: 317 electoral votes
Kerry: 221 electoral votes

Closest states: NH, PA, VA.

Map plays out the same as 2004 except NM (narrowly) goes to Kerry while PA and WI (both narrowly) both go to Romney.

[Alben Barkley]

2016 was probably set to be a year in which Republicans take the White House after two years of Obama. Generic D vs. Generic R in 2016 probably results in the Republican nominee winning.

Romney: 317 electoral votes
Kerry: 221 electoral votes

Closest states: NH, PA, VA.

Map plays out the same as 2004 except NM (narrowly) goes to Kerry while PA and WI (both narrowly) both go to Romney.

I don’t see Romney winning VA, CO, or NV. Or WI or PA. He certainly isn’t winning the popular vote, as no Republican has in 7 of the last 8 elections.

I also think the whole “hard to win three terms in a row” thing is something of a myth based on a series of flukes. 1960, 2000, and 2016 were all elections in which a candidate closely tied to a popular two-term incumbent president ran against a more charismatic and exciting candidate from the other party. In all three, the latter won, but extremely narrowly, and without the popular vote (except in 1960, which it’s debated if JFK even won the PV depending on how Alabama is counted). Indeed these are probably the three most controversial elections since 1876. Any or all of them could have just as easily gone the other way, in which case people would think winning three terms in a row is the rule not the exception.

And then you have 1988, an election under very similar circumstances as those three, except the incumbent party won easily. You know what the major difference is though? While Bush was an uninspiring candidate, Dukakis was just as bad or worse in the charisma department. That would be more like the situation here. So without the extra excitement of a charismatic challenger to put the opposition party over the edge, the incumbent party probably just wins by default due to broad satisfaction with them. In fact, I think Nixon, Gore, and Clinton all would have won against more bland challengers, given that the charismatic challengers were just barely able to win as it was.

And in this case, Romney’s failed campaign would be a less distant memory than Kerry’s, and he’d have been out of office much longer while Kerry was still Secretary of State. Those could be advantages for Kerry as well. The election would be more like a repeat of 2012 than 2004; without Trumpist populism to shake things up, hard to see Romney improving dramatically on his own performance from four years earlier.

[NewYorkExpress]

Given the standard eight year itch, I think Romney would start with the advantage, but Kerry's chances improve if Obama becomes more popular (as he did IRL).

Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan 49% 245 EV
John Kerry/Kirsten Gillibrand 48.97% 293 EV

Yes, I have Romney picking Paul Ryan again. Ryan's a more valuable pick this time (and actually carries Wisconsin this time)

Kerry's choice of Gillibrand is a factor in why he loses the popular vote by a narrow margin (plus Obama doesn't quite reach the approval heights he does IRL because Trump isn't the GOP nominee), as Gillibrand gets attacked by both Romney and Ryan for flip-flopping during her climb from Blue Dog Representative to Senator. Still, Kerry is able to win the electoral college by holding the Midwest (except for Wisconsin).

[darklordoftech]

How would voters feel about the Iran Deal?

[President Biden Democrat]

Romney would win, here is the map below:

Fmr Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA)/Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): 277 √
Sec. John Kerry (D-MA)/Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): 261

[Del Tachi]

2016 was probably set to be a year in which Republicans take the White House after two years of Obama. Generic D vs. Generic R in 2016 probably results in the Republican nominee winning.

Romney: 317 electoral votes
Kerry: 221 electoral votes

Closest states: NH, PA, VA.

Map plays out the same as 2004 except NM (narrowly) goes to Kerry while PA and WI (both narrowly) both go to Romney.

I don’t see Romney winning VA, CO, or NV. Or WI or PA. He certainly isn’t winning the popular vote, as no Republican has in 7 of the last 8 elections.

I also think the whole “hard to win three terms in a row” thing is something of a myth based on a series of flukes. 1960, 2000, and 2016 were all elections in which a candidate closely tied to a popular two-term incumbent president ran against a more charismatic and exciting candidate from the other party. In all three, the latter won, but extremely narrowly, and without the popular vote (except in 1960, which it’s debated if JFK even won the PV depending on how Alabama is counted). Indeed these are probably the three most controversial elections since 1876. Any or all of them could have just as easily gone the other way, in which case people would think winning three terms in a row is the rule not the exception.

And then you have 1988, an election under very similar circumstances as those three, except the incumbent party won easily. You know what the major difference is though? While Bush was an uninspiring candidate, Dukakis was just as bad or worse in the charisma department. That would be more like the situation here. So without the extra excitement of a charismatic challenger to put the opposition party over the edge, the incumbent party probably just wins by default due to broad satisfaction with them. In fact, I think Nixon, Gore, and Clinton all would have won against more bland challengers, given that the charismatic challengers were just barely able to win as it was.

And in this case, Romney’s failed campaign would be a less distant memory than Kerry’s, and he’d have been out of office much longer while Kerry was still Secretary of State. Those could be advantages for Kerry as well. The election would be more like a repeat of 2012 than 2004; without Trumpist populism to shake things up, hard to see Romney improving dramatically on his own performance from four years earlier.

I don't think you get how lame a candidate Kerry in 2016 would have been. 

[Agonized-Statism]

I don't think you get how lame a candidate Kerry in 2016 would have been. 

About as lame as Romney.

[Del Tachi]

I don't think you get how lame a candidate Kerry in 2016 would have been. 

About as lame as Romney.

Romney at least started 2016 with polling leads among Republicans, such as here.  As the most recent GOP nominee, Romney was pretty close to the middle of the party and could have been a consensus candidate in a big field. 

Kerry was much more of a non-factor in (pre-Trump) 2016 than Romney was, and re-treading a 2004 nominee (as opposed to a 2012 one) would have been too much of a historical anachronism for Americans to swallow.

Romney/Haley defeats Kerry/Booker