What's this revisionist history with Santorum somehow being popular in PA? He was despised by the end of his tenure. Best-case scenario is he would've pumped turnout in the historically conservative sections of central PA though there was no way he was winning Luzerne/Erie/Northampton like Trump did in '16.
Romney's hypothetical path to victory was never making inroads in blue-collar strongholds like NE Ohio, the Coal Region of NEPA, Macomb County Michigan, or the Driftless Area of Wisconsin. Obama was winning those areas no matter what. A man that literally said "let Detroit go bankrupt" never stood a chance there. His path was heavily focused on the middle-aged suburbanites which have been a reliable part of the GOP coalition since time immemorial. The suburban voter that now votes reliably D was still fresh out of college with a hope and change poster on their wall in 2012.
For that reason, I would say Portman would've been the best choice. He would've coalesced support for Romney in western Ohio, helped him run better in NOVA due to his track record on foreign policy, perhaps softened the GOP hardline stance on immigration enough to win Florida, and maybe even peeled off enough suburbanites for him to win Colorado.
Granted, This was without hindsight. If I had hindsight, I would've agreed with you and picked Portman but I still would've made a bigger play for PA.
Fair point. What's your point of divergence here from the original timeline? I'm going to assume you mean after Romney clinched the nom.
As it was in 2012, I agree with making a play for PA not necessarily to win it, but to have an effect similar to Bush in 04 where his emphasis on the state diverted Kerry campaign resources from elsewhere. The fact that he only managed 25k more votes than McCain in 2008 attests to how little of an effort was made. That said, Romney was just never really the type to appeal to the Reagan Democrat that you need to win MI/PA as a Republican. The man cut his teeth on being a "fiscal conservative" and while there was obviously strong GOP enthusiasm in opposition to the stagnant economy it just wouldn't be
Assuming this as the battleground map, I still think Portman would've been a strong choice for the reasons I mentioned above. Romney should've known from the start that his wheelhouse was with upper-middle-class suburban voters and doubled down on that.
In addition, Portman would've been a good choice even at the time because Romney needed somebody who could hold their own in the VP debate. He should've known Ryan was too inexperienced to go against Biden in a 1v1. Also I feel that Ryan's budget was anathema to swing voters in the Rust Belt, especially to voters in the Driftless Area where there is a strong labor tradition as well as economic populism due to the 80s farm crisis.
The first Romney victory map would've been the most likely imo minus IA, +NV. Portman's moderate history on immigration could've help insulate Romney from the otherwise crushing margins Obama had with Latino voters.
Poll
