2016: President Romney/Ryan vs. Sanders/Biden

[Chips]

✓ President Mitt Romney (R-MA)/Vice President Paul Ryan (R-WI): 317 EV. (51.06%)
Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)/Fmr. Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE): 221 EV. (46.31%)

[Orca]

This would definitely not happen. For one, voters already rejected Romney and Ryan in 2012, so they would most likely lose traditional swing states like NC and FL. Secondly, ME-2 and PA were only won by Republicans when they ran someone with a populist message, which Romney and Ryan don't have. Additionally, states like CO and VA have been trending to the left a lot in recent years and show no signs of any rightward shift or any chance of voting for Republicans on the statewide level for a long time.

[Chips]

This would definitely not happen. For one, voters already rejected Romney and Ryan in 2012, so they would most likely lose traditional swing states like NC and FL. Secondly, ME-2 and PA were only won by Republicans when they ran someone with a populist message, which Romney and Ryan don't have. Additionally, states like CO and VA have been trending to the left a lot in recent years and show no signs of any rightward shift or any chance of voting for Republicans on the statewide level for a long time.

Well, This is a scenario where they were already elected in 2012. I actually think Romney's northeastern connections would've helped in PA and ME-02 along with NH despite Sanders being the nominee. CO and VA are two states Romney probably would've captured in 2012 if he won and if he was a moderately successful president I see no reason as to why they wouldn't have voted for him again. I even gave Romney NV, IA and NM as I would've saw the Romney/Ryan ticket as being able to replicate the 2004 coalition by getting around 40% of Hispanics and winning college-educated whites as well. WI barely holds for Sanders as he's able to keep some of the western counties in Democratic hands.

It's a repeat of the 2004 election except that Romney's northeastern connections also allow him to win back NH, do well enough around Philadelphia (winning Bucks, Northampton and Chester) to win PA and even barely winning ME-02 with a strong white-working class turnout. NM and WI were the picks I was least sure of.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Romney/Ryan would have beaten Sanders/Biden.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-chicago-tribune-endorses-romney-story.html

While three of the Republican candidates were giving speeches and casting votes in Congress, one of these four was managing, and sometimes salvaging, large enterprises in the public and private sectors. One of these four was forced to make costly organizations live, however unpleasantly, within their means. One of these four was learning what it is to live with the often good, sometimes bad, consequences of his executive decisions.

For his demonstrated abilities and the economic pragmatism at his core, the Tribune endorses former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts as the Republicans' best, most responsible choice in Tuesday's Illinois primary. The other three contestants, for lack of Romney's credibility on this threat to the American way, can only try to talk a good game. We're far more confident that Romney is the candidate best equipped to keep the U.S. from devolving into New Europe.

This editorial endorsement of Romney by the Chicago Tribune is one of the best-reasoned arguments I read for Romney in 2012.  THAT Romney didn't show up for the campaign.  But if THAT Romney had shown up and gotten elected he would have POSSIBLY expanded the electoral map as no Republican has since Bush 43 in 1988.  THAT Romney would have been respected.  THAT Romney would have had a record of accomplishment, and not mere talk.

The question is whether or not THAT Romney was the Romney that won in 2012 in this scenario.

[Chips]

Romney/Ryan would have beaten Sanders/Biden.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-chicago-tribune-endorses-romney-story.html

While three of the Republican candidates were giving speeches and casting votes in Congress, one of these four was managing, and sometimes salvaging, large enterprises in the public and private sectors. One of these four was forced to make costly organizations live, however unpleasantly, within their means. One of these four was learning what it is to live with the often good, sometimes bad, consequences of his executive decisions.

For his demonstrated abilities and the economic pragmatism at his core, the Tribune endorses former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts as the Republicans' best, most responsible choice in Tuesday's Illinois primary. The other three contestants, for lack of Romney's credibility on this threat to the American way, can only try to talk a good game. We're far more confident that Romney is the candidate best equipped to keep the U.S. from devolving into New Europe.

This editorial endorsement of Romney by the Chicago Tribune is one of the best-reasoned arguments I read for Romney in 2012.  THAT Romney didn't show up for the campaign.  But if THAT Romney had shown up and gotten elected he would have POSSIBLY expanded the electoral map as no Republican has since Bush 43 in 1988.  THAT Romney would have been respected.  THAT Romney would have had a record of accomplishment, and not mere talk.

The question is whether or not THAT Romney was the Romney that won in 2012 in this scenario.

If Romney were to have won, he would've likely won anywhere from 275 (VA, OH, CO, FL) to 321 (275+PA, NV, WI, IA, NH). I think he would've gotten 295 by winning FL, PA, OH, VA, and CO. IA, NV, NH and WI would've been up for grabs.

[Chips]

My reasonings for some states:

NH and ME-02: Sanders may be from the area, but so was Romney. The two would've balanced out each other but I think a relatively successful Romney would've won re-election with those five electoral votes in his column if only barely. ME at-large is also competitive but Sanders holds on there.

PA: I think Romney would've won PA if he won the 2012 election against Obama and I see no reason as to why he wouldn't have repeated his success especially if he was successful.

OH: This would've been a lot closer than 2016 IRL but Romney ends up victorious by 4%. He wins Hamilton but doesn't win Erie, Ashtabula or Trumbull.

MN, WI, MI: Romney would've been competitive in all three but I think Sanders would've barely ended up victorious in all three.

IA: Similar to OH.

NV: A better performance in Clark and a win in Washoe is enough to give Romney a win.

CO: Romney probably wins by 2-3% with a strong performance in Larimer, Jefferson, Arapahoe and Adams.

NM: This is my surprise pick. I think Sanders was not the best fit for the state and I think Romney could've reached 40% nationwide with Hispanics which could've been enough for a win.

[BigVic]

Romney would’ve won

[Senator-elect Spark]

[BigVic]

A strong Romney win

[Schiff for Senate]

WI goes red (by about 1%) because of Ryan.
NH goes marginally red (less than 5% but likely more than 1%) because while Sanders comes from neighbouring Vermont, his brand of progressivism doesn't match NH Democrats while Romney's social liberal / economic conservative positions as Governor help him in NH - and the fact that he's from MA, which borders NH.
ME-02 stays blue, since Romney isn't Trump - less populist and a worse fit for the district. His coming from MA cancels out with Sanders coming from VT.
VA stays narrowly blue - it gave Clinton a margin of over 5%, so I say it votes for Sanders by about 1-2%.
CO goes narrowly red (by less than 1%).
PA stays (narrowly) blue since Biden is from DE and grew up in Scranton. Margin similar to Biden's in 2020.
NV goes red by less than 1%.
NM, which voted for Clinton by over 10%, stays with Sanders by between 5% and 10%.

[Agonized-Statism]

Wouldn't happen. Why would Sanders, nominated as a rejection of a failed Obama/Biden administration, run with the former VP? Even if Obama himself got the nomination, he wouldn't replicate a ticket that lost. And if the answer is some kind of DNC maneuvering, they would more likely find some other establishmentarian for him to run with.

[Chips]

My map here remains virtually the same. NM and WI could've gone either way.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I think it depends on how Romney does. If it goes like a UWS/Old School Republican Republican wank timeline (which I like), working class Americans benefit from the Romney policies and vote for him. Or (more likely) the economy recovers like OTL and is excellent by the election- but still crap for people living in rural areas.

So, I think we could (possibly) see some weird thing like CT going for Romney, but I'll just show my personal guess:

Honestly I think the EC would benefit the Republicans less, as Sanders likely loses the PV by around the same margin as the EV.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think it depends on how Romney does. If it goes like a UWS/Old School Republican Republican wank timeline (which I like), working class Americans benefit from the Romney policies and vote for him. Or (more likely) the economy recovers like OTL and is excellent by the election- but still crap for people living in rural areas.

So, I think we could (possibly) see some weird thing like CT going for Romney, but I'll just show my personal guess:

Honestly I think the EC would benefit the Republicans less, as Sanders likely loses the PV by around the same margin as the EV.

This isn't like Sanders picking Biden, Bernie campaigned against Biden due to Biden vote on Bankruptcy Reform, Bernie would pick Warren or Baldwin and NM and smt going R ever against n