Was 2012 the election Dems should have lost?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:45:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Was 2012 the election Dems should have lost?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Was 2012 the election Dems should have lost?  (Read 2762 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 17, 2020, 06:49:09 PM »

Kennedy and fat tony probably retire under a romney presidency but because Dems have the senate they either block the nominations or force him to pick a consensus nominee like peter hall from vermont. If they unseat him in 2016 they probably have 55 senate seats in  2017.

On the other hand. It's possible you have back to back senate massacres in 2018 and 2020
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2020, 06:58:55 PM »

Democrats probably would have lost the Senate had Romney won.  In an environment where Obama loses, Dems probably lose Senate races in ND, MT, IN, WI, VA, and maybe even Ohio.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2020, 07:24:22 PM »

50/50 chance the Democrats lose the Senate. Obamacare likely gets repealed with no replacement, as repeal AND replace didn't become a thing until Obama secured a 2nd term with Obamacare on the ballot. A Tax Cut for the wealthy as large or larger than Trump's is passed before November of 2014 and Scalia and Kennedy are replaced before then as well. A neoconservative foreign policy makes a comeback with Romney to. After that, Romney rides a recovering economy to a second term in 2016 and replaces RBG this year, though Romney replaces her with someone more qualified and less controversial than ACB.

An 8 year Romney Presidency, which is a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush with dashes of Trump's immigration and China polices, ends with millions of people not having health insurance, a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, a war in Iran and/or Syria, a recession and a pandemic (though one he handles better than Trump).
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2020, 10:56:08 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2020, 11:14:24 PM »

50/50 chance the Democrats lose the Senate. Obamacare likely gets repealed with no replacement, as repeal AND replace didn't become a thing until Obama secured a 2nd term with Obamacare on the ballot. A Tax Cut for the wealthy as large or larger than Trump's is passed before November of 2014 and Scalia and Kennedy are replaced before then as well. A neoconservative foreign policy makes a comeback with Romney to. After that, Romney rides a recovering economy to a second term in 2016 and replaces RBG this year, though Romney replaces her with someone more qualified and less controversial than ACB.

An 8 year Romney Presidency, which is a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush with dashes of Trump's immigration and China polices, ends with millions of people not having health insurance, a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, a war in Iran and/or Syria, a recession and a pandemic (though one he handles better than Trump).

I have a hard time seeing them hold the senate with the six year itch. It hasn't happened since 1966.
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2020, 11:39:47 PM »

50/50 chance the Democrats lose the Senate. Obamacare likely gets repealed with no replacement, as repeal AND replace didn't become a thing until Obama secured a 2nd term with Obamacare on the ballot. A Tax Cut for the wealthy as large or larger than Trump's is passed before November of 2014 and Scalia and Kennedy are replaced before then as well. A neoconservative foreign policy makes a comeback with Romney to. After that, Romney rides a recovering economy to a second term in 2016 and replaces RBG this year, though Romney replaces her with someone more qualified and less controversial than ACB.

An 8 year Romney Presidency, which is a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush with dashes of Trump's immigration and China polices, ends with millions of people not having health insurance, a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, a war in Iran and/or Syria, a recession and a pandemic (though one he handles better than Trump).

I have a hard time seeing them hold the senate with the six year itch. It hasn't happened since 1966.

The Dems would definitely win the Senate by then and would likely win back the house sometime between 2014 and 2018. That said, Romney could do a lot of damage in the 2013-14 time frame and peal off Manchin types from the Democratic party on certain pieces of legislation.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2020, 11:44:47 PM »

a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush
Considering what W’s “compassionate” policies were (No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D), Romney being less “compassionate” would be a good thing.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2020, 08:53:55 AM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.
Logged
McGarnagle
SomethingPolitical
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,613


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2020, 12:24:16 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.

I don't think all the blame should be placed on Obama. In the end, it was voters who didn't show up.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2020, 03:57:21 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.

I don't think all the blame should be placed on Obama. In the end, it was voters who didn't show up.

Obama could have done more to get these voters to turn out, like attacking Republicans a lot more and effectively.
Logged
McGarnagle
SomethingPolitical
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,613


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2020, 04:03:47 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

I agree.  2010 was where Obama did the almost irreversible damage to Dems.  God he and his people should have taken that election more seriously.

I don't think all the blame should be placed on Obama. In the end, it was voters who didn't show up.

Obama could have done more to get these voters to turn out, like attacking Republicans a lot more and effectively.

Fair point - but I noticed at the time, in my life, that a lot of people who turned out in 2008 just didn't show up in 2010. Some of them may have thought simply by electing Obama, their work was done - others got suckered in by Glenn Beck and Fox News and bought into misinformation (though thankfully some realized later they'd taken the wrong course). While that is anecdotal and anecdotal evidence on its own is insufficient, surely I'm not the only one who noticed this happening.

Yes, Obama could have been more forceful in combating the Republicans, but I think at that point many voters underestimated how much midterms mattered.
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,066


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2020, 05:58:31 PM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

2008 was practically unloseable for Democrats though. 2004 was the one Democrats should be glad they lost, otherwise they never get Obamacare and a big Republican trifecta after 2008 implements austerity so the Great Recession is much worse.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2020, 09:00:15 PM »

The election they were best off losing is the one they did - 2016.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2020, 07:41:36 AM »

so maybe 2008 was the election to lose. There are probably 62-63 senators and 270-275 dem house members come 2011. Stevens probably gives up but he is either blocked or a consensus pick is nominated.

2008 was practically unloseable for Democrats though. 2004 was the one Democrats should be glad they lost, otherwise they never get Obamacare and a big Republican trifecta after 2008 implements austerity so the Great Recession is much worse.

It’s likely the Great Recession wouldn’t have been as bad if Kerry were President from 2004-2008.  He would have likely had more competent appointees who would have better understood the crisis and taken the appropriate actions to lessen its impact (i.e. setting up an orderly wind down for Lehman).
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2020, 10:19:47 AM »

I mean ... I certainly would say we'd all be in a lot better position right now if they had lost in 2012?
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2020, 08:31:32 PM »

Broke: Democrats should have lost 2012.

Woke: Democrats should have lost 1976.

Bespoke: Democrats should have lost 1912.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2020, 07:26:42 AM »

I mean ... I certainly would say we'd all be in a lot better position right now if they had lost in 2012?

Because no Trump?
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 20, 2020, 07:31:26 AM »

This is nothing more than paper argument. At no point in that election cycle did I ever think Obama was losing/the Republican nominee whoever it was had a chance at winning.
Logged
Calthrina950
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,937
United States


P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2021, 09:42:37 AM »

50/50 chance the Democrats lose the Senate. Obamacare likely gets repealed with no replacement, as repeal AND replace didn't become a thing until Obama secured a 2nd term with Obamacare on the ballot. A Tax Cut for the wealthy as large or larger than Trump's is passed before November of 2014 and Scalia and Kennedy are replaced before then as well. A neoconservative foreign policy makes a comeback with Romney to. After that, Romney rides a recovering economy to a second term in 2016 and replaces RBG this year, though Romney replaces her with someone more qualified and less controversial than ACB.

An 8 year Romney Presidency, which is a less "compassionate" version of George W. Bush with dashes of Trump's immigration and China polices, ends with millions of people not having health insurance, a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court, a war in Iran and/or Syria, a recession and a pandemic (though one he handles better than Trump).

We ended up with a 6-3 Conservative Supreme Court anyhow, thanks to Ginsburg's death and replacement by Barrett.
Logged
SInNYC
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,204


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2021, 11:24:31 AM »
« Edited: July 20, 2021, 11:35:28 AM by SInNYC »

2016 is actually the best case for the left if Ds have to lose a single election. Pre-Trump, Ds were a neoliberal party, Bernie was a nutty gadfly, and all Rs and some Ds denounced any policies helping workers as class warfare.

None of these are true today, and I attribute it to Trump's victory won largely because he claimed to represent those harmed by these issues. Ds are talking about international labor/consumer/environmental standards instead of ISDS. Bernie is heading the budget committee in charge of deciding the nation's priorities. Even Rs dont mouth the mantra "class warfare" every time something helping people gets debated. And Romney would have kept his party as sane as possible, unlike Trump. And maybe its not so bad that we recognize that we are not some unique beacon of democracy after the insurrection.

I also see the Supreme Court being 6-3 or 5-4 with Federalist Society judges, so not a huge difference from today.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2021, 06:21:18 PM »
« Edited: July 20, 2021, 06:46:10 PM by Statilius the Epicurean »

Winning in 2012 could be a real disaster for Republicans. Romney was extremely movement conservative in a way that was quite out of step with the general public, it's likely that him and Ryan after repealing Obamacare would have launched an attack on entitlements and Social Security of the kind that crippled the Bush administration in 2005. Add a hideously unpopular tax cut like the one that lost Trump the House in 2018 and they could be courting electoral disaster by focusing on the most divisive economic elements of the conservative agenda.  

On the other side Democrats probably respond to the first unapologetically liberal President since LBJ being a one-termer by moving to the centre again and cooperating on stuff like deficit reduction, which may give Romney cover. Bernie's 2016 run would be pretty interesting and might strike even more of a chord with Democrats, or Hillary runs more like her 2008 campaign and shuts him out. Either way it's a really bad timeline for Dems because Romney takes a hacksaw to the welfare state and there are no Obama second term cultural wins like Obergefell. Wishcasting would be that Bernie's run is stronger and becomes this TL's Trump, but the highly possible alternative is an entrenched economic and social conservative ascendency. So no, not one they should have lost.

2016 is actually the best case for the left if Ds have to lose a single election. Pre-Trump, Ds were a neoliberal party, Bernie was a nutty gadfly, and all Rs and some Ds denounced any policies helping workers as class warfare.

None of these are true today, and I attribute it to Trump's victory won largely because he claimed to represent those harmed by these issues. Ds are talking about international labor/consumer/environmental standards instead of ISDS. Bernie is heading the budget committee in charge of deciding the nation's priorities. Even Rs dont mouth the mantra "class warfare" every time something helping people gets debated. And Romney would have kept his party as sane as possible, unlike Trump. And maybe its not so bad that we recognize that we are not some unique beacon of democracy after the insurrection.

I also see the Supreme Court being 6-3 or 5-4 with Federalist Society judges, so not a huge difference from today.

Trump's win was salutary for the left in the discourse in many ways, but on the other hand Trump winning in 2016 took a ton of WWC voters out of the Democratic coalition that makes a progressive legislative agenda basically DOA for the 2020s. Of course Clinton and other Democratic Congressional leaders like Schumer were blithely feeding this realignment from the other side, so it probably happens anyway if Clinton wins.
Logged
Alben Barkley
KYWildman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,282
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.97, S: -5.74

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2021, 11:04:51 PM »
« Edited: July 24, 2021, 11:07:56 PM by Alben Barkley »

There has been no election since at least 1928 that the country was better off because the Democrat lost.

And I say 1928 not because the Republican was better (Al Smith was actually the first time in a while where the Democrat was clearly leagues better), but simply because it was probably necessary for Hoover to f—k up and take all the blame for the Depression for FDR to come in and save the nation.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2021, 11:12:38 PM »

There has been no election since at least 1928 that the country was better off because the Democrat lost.

And I say 1928 not because the Republican was better (Al Smith was actually the first time in a while where the Democrat was clearly leagues better), but simply because it was probably necessary for Hoover to f—k up and take all the blame for the Depression for FDR to come in and save the nation.

Given hindsight wouldn’t you say 1976 was a bad election for democrats to lose given what happened in 1980(not only presidential but congress too) and 2004 was good that you lost as well given the 2006 and 2008 landslides vs the possibility of Romney/McCain getting in 2009 with filibuster proof of senate
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2021, 01:20:24 PM »

There has been no election since at least 1928 that the country was better off because the Democrat lost.

And I say 1928 not because the Republican was better (Al Smith was actually the first time in a while where the Democrat was clearly leagues better), but simply because it was probably necessary for Hoover to f—k up and take all the blame for the Depression for FDR to come in and save the nation.

Given hindsight wouldn’t you say 1976 was a bad election for democrats to lose win given what happened in 1980(not only presidential but congress too) and 2004 was good that you lost as well given the 2006 and 2008 landslides vs the possibility of Romney/McCain getting in 2009 with filibuster proof of senate

Fixed that for ya. 1976 was the one election the Democrats won that I wish they lost for the reasons that you said as well as the fact that Ford would've handled (even if only slightly) the late 70s better than Carter did, and I'm also glad we lost in 2004, again, for the reasons you listed here.

As for the election the Democrats lost that had no silver lining to said loss, it was 2000. Gore would've handled 9/11 (if it even still happens) worlds better than Bush did, there'd be no invasion of Iraq, no Bush Tax cuts, we'd have gotten the ball rolling on Climate Change, and there'd be a far less severe financial crisis in the late 2000s, and that's even if Gore ends up a one term President. Don't get me wrong, 2016 was a bad loss, especially with hindsight given the events of the last year, but even that election loss had some silver linings (Dems retaking the house in 2018, GOP gerrymandering post 2020 not being nearly as bad as it could've been, Trump accelerating Suburban trends to the Democrats).
Logged
Orangeoutlaw
Rookie
**
Posts: 27


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2021, 12:48:19 AM »

Some say 2016 was the year the country lost their minds. They did, but only bc they lost their minds in 2012.

Romney was the last chance for Dems (and really everyone) to get a non “extreme” Republican. And the signs were clear as daylight to even me as a 12 year old back then considering the runner up was Rick Santorum and that a large part of the base saw Romney as a RINO (or at least wanted someone more culturally conservative.) After two consecutive losses for the “establishment” wing, it was clear that the path would be open for something else.

If you preferred Obama to Romney in 2012, you really have no reason to complain about the GOP today.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 14 queries.