It is March 2012 and you are Mitt Romney's campaign manager. What is done differently?

[GregTheGreat657]

Everything after that was a dream. Please don't try to sabotage.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1. Dont make the 47% comment

2. Make his trade views regarding China a much bigger part of the campaign

3. Dont let Obama's attack's over the Summer of 2012 go unanswered

4. Pick Rob Portman as the VP choice

[Chips]

Biggest things:

#1. Visit PA a lot more, In fact. Replace most WI visits with PA visits instead.

#2. Pick Portman or Tom Ridge or someone else from the Rust Belt.

#3. Like OSR said, make trade with China a big issue and hit home in IA, WI, OH and PA about it.

#4. Don't make 47% of course.

#5. Apologize for the Let Detroit Go Bankrupt comments and really point out his family's midwestern politics and the accomplishments they've done.

If all this went well:



So yeah, I would've definitely run a more Rust Belt oriented campaign. Try to make Trump's future strategy work 4 years earlier. I would of course still make stops to NV, VA and CO but my main roadmap would've been that.

[Schiff for Senate]

Biggest things:

#1. Visit PA a lot more, In fact. Replace most WI visits with PA visits instead.

#2. Pick Portman or Tom Ridge or someone else from the Rust Belt.

#3. Like OSR said, make trade with China a big issue and hit home in IA, WI, OH and PA about it.

#4. Don't make 47% of course.

#5. Apologize for the Let Detroit Go Bankrupt comments and really point out his family's midwestern politics and the accomplishments they've done.

If all this went well:



So yeah, I would've definitely run a more Rust Belt oriented campaign. Try to make Trump's future strategy work 4 years earlier. I would of course still make stops to NV, VA and CO but my main roadmap would've been that.

Generally agree with all this, but I would also stop Romney in advance from making the "binders full of women" statement. Who knows how much it hurt him, and it could be very easily avoided.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Not making the 47% comment alone probably gives him Florida...

[Vice President Christian Man]

Urge him to drop out and endorse Paul

[dw93]

1. Pick Portman, Kasich, Rubio, or if he's open to it Mitch Daniels to be VP instead of Ryan
2. No 47% Remark
3. Don't play to the base on Benghazi only to get fact checked in the 2nd debate.

[Samof94]

Pick a more exciting running mate would be one thing.

[Redban]

I just finished the book Game Change on 2012. It seems the writers argue that Romney's campaign made these mistakes:

1). Romney didn't have a good answer for the 47% video. His response was something along the lines of, "What I said wasn't elegantly stated, but I agree with the main message that we need to reduce government dependency." The writers of Game Change seem to argue that Romney should have done a full-throated apology; they use Obama's handling of the Jeremiah Wright story in 2007-2008 as an example of how Romney should've proceeded

2). The authors of Game Change feel that Romney bungled the Benghazi situation. When the story first broke, Romney came across as politically opportunistic, trying to score political points during a tragedy. At the debate prep, as well, Romney's people should have known that Obama called it an "act of terror" at the Rose Garden, which would've avoided the Candy Crowley fact-check. Romney's debate prep specifically rehearsed his attack on Obama for allegedly refusing to call Benghazi an act of terror; that Romney's people never read Obama's rose garden transcript was unacceptable

3).  Paul Ryan’s Medicare and Social Security positions (i.e. calling for cuts) were ripe for attacks, but Ryan helped mobilize the conservative base too, who were skeptical of Romney. So Paul Ryan neither helped nor hurt. But instead of a safe candidate who didn't help or hurt, the authors of Game Change imply that Romney should have went for a bolder candidate. They think Rubio, Christie, or Portman (who were all part of the vetting process) might've worked. My impression from Game Change is that they feel he should've gone with Christie, despite the troubles they had with vetting Christie. Having Christie as the VP might've helped Romney during Sandy. Instead of being blacked out for a week (as he was), Romney could've been on-screen during Sandy because his running mate was running the state most affected

[Sumner 1868]

There was nothing that could be done. Romney was unelectable. People who say "no 47% comment" forget that most GOP hacks were insisting right until Election Day that the public agreed with those remarks. They insisted that the masses would love Romney cutting privatizing all their public services and eliminating labor rights legislation. Romney was what they had romanticized since the 1980s - this was the peak of True Believers in Reaganism control over the GOP. Ryan wasn't picked on accident.

People who say Romney should have ben hardline on trade don't recall the GOP of the early 2010s. There was no way - short of Trump pulling an upset ahead of schedule - that any Republican in 2012 would oppose outsourcing. Did you notice that Democratic Senate candidates in most states outpolled Obama that year? Romney lost because he was a standard pre-Trump Republican and people didn't want any more of that.

[Vosem]

There was nothing that could be done. Romney was unelectable. People who say "no 47% comment" forget that most GOP hacks were insisting right until Election Day that the public agreed with those remarks. They insisted that the masses would love Romney cutting privatizing all their public services and eliminating labor rights legislation. Romney was what they had romanticized since the 1980s - this was the peak of True Believers in Reaganism control over the GOP. Ryan wasn't picked on accident.

People who say Romney should have ben hardline on trade don't recall the GOP of the early 2010s. There was no way - short of Trump pulling an upset ahead of schedule - that any Republican in 2012 would oppose outsourcing. Did you notice that Democratic Senate candidates in most states outpolled Obama that year? Romney lost because he was a standard pre-Trump Republican and people didn't want any more of that.

They were basically certainly right, incidentally, given the history of these things and the economic effects. I agree with "no 47% comment", just because it was something for negative media to focus on, but I don't really think that it was much of a game-changer or that it was the reason Romney lost. (In general, the outcome in 2012 was exactly predicted by economic conditions and wasn't really something that needs special explanation. People didn't want more pre-Trump Republicans: well, apart from the zillions and zillions of times they voted for them in landslides.) Polling didn't shift when it leaked, for instance, actually quite unlike "grab her by the pussy" or actual gaffes.

I think what hurt more was the "legitimate rape" comment; while Romney himself had a response that was fine, many Republican candidates tripped over trying to figure out how to respond to that line. If it's March, then I put real emphasis on trying to get anyone other than Akin nominated in Missouri -- like, spend money promoting John Brunner -- and then I think you don't see a cascading set of failures with the Senate nominees.

In general, I would push back more on hostile media coverage, and try to emphasize ways in which the media was actually lying to ordinary people. It's still difficult for me to think of what the correct response to Candy Crowley would've been; ask her to read Obama's comments, maybe. But I would put real thought into this one.

There are various things you could do if you know that you are traveling back in time to 2012; can I bring tapes of the actual debates? One could prepare answers to things Obama will say, and make the debates seem like larger victories. Is there a "butterfly effect" in force? Does Sandy still happen?

~~

But I don't know that much of this would've worked; not because Romney was 'unelectable', but just because the economy had improved by enough that any incumbent was going to win without large-scale missteps. Holding the same election in November 2011 would've resulted in a Romney win; holding the same election in November 2013 would've resulted in a significantly larger Obama win.

[Sumner 1868]

They were basically certainly right, incidentally, given the history of these things