If Romney was elected in 2012, what would a re-election map have looked like?

[Chips]

First of all, I will assume Hillary doesn't run in 2016. Romney beat Obama and I have a feeling this would've scared the DNC into pushing Sanders forward so I will assume he becomes the nominee. Sanders runs a populist campaign, running against the more establishmentarian Romney. 2016 in real life but reversed. Sanders polls well in the Rust Belt but finds it difficult to make inroads in the South and Mountain West. The end result is similar to the real life 2004 result, but with Pennsylvania and Maine's 2nd district voting Republican as well. Sanders does well in the Upper Midwest but still struggles in Iowa and Ohio. Romney's more populist view on subsides in this scenario helps him barely snatch Iowa and also proves to be a big help in Ohio, which goes to Romney by 1%. Also, Maine's 2nd falls to Romney as Sanders' policies prove too much for upstate Maine. Virginia, North Carolina and Florida all go to Romney by over 5%. Sanders also loses out in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico thanks to Romney doing a lot better among Hispanics in this scenario. Sanders does extremely well in New Hampshire, winning it by over 5% but he isn't as lucky in Pennsylvania which goes to Romney by about 3% thanks to doing rather poorly in the Philadelphia suburbs, losing Bucks, Monroe and Chester.

Final result: 313-225 Romney and Romney wins the popular vote by 3.

[Person Man]

What would that mean for now?

[Gass3268]

Your average American nationally had no idea who Bernie Sanders was before he challenged Hillary Clinton in 2015-2016.

[Chips]

What would that mean for now?

Probably a Democrat would be in the White House today, probably not Biden though.

[Person Man]

What would that mean for now?

Probably a Democrat would be in the White House today, probably not Biden though.

Definitely not Biden. By this point, it could have been Hillary.

[hurricanehink]

A lot of it comes down to how Romney wins in 2012. Let's assume a 4-5 point swing, which would flip Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. Bill Nelson likely still wins in Florida, given that he outpaced Obama by 13 points. Ohio, Brown won by 5.6 points OTL, so I think he barely hangs on. Could be a similar story in Virginia, where Kaine won by 5.9 points OTL over George Allen. Elsewhere, Warren still picks up MA, King still wins as Indy in Maine.

Assuming this same swing toward Romney, the first flip from OTL is North Dakota, where Rick Berg defeats Heidi Heitkamp. In Montana, Jon Tester already beat Denny Rehberg by 4 points despite Obama losing the state by 14 points, so I think Tester still holds on. Similar logic for Indiana - Romney already won Indiana in our timeline by 300,000 votes, a 10-point victory. Even with Romney's victory, I think Donnelly still wins due to Mourdock's rape comments.

Let's say 2012 ends with the GOP controlling the House and the Dems controlling the Senate 52-48. Romney will be between a Tea Party-controlled House, wanting to end Obamacare, along with a Dem-controlled Senate. With government inaction (and possibly a shutdown or two), the Dems do fairly well in 2014.

Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Udall in Colorado, Tom Harkin in Iowa, Max Baucus in Montana, Kay Hagan in North Carolina, and Jay Rockefeller in West Virginia all run and win again. I expect Tom Cotton to still win in Arkansas. I suspect former South Dakota governor Mike Rounds to run and win against Tim Johnson. Independent Greg Orman defeats Pat Roberts in Kansas, and caucuses with the Democratic majority. Mike Michaud defeats Susan Collins to become the first openly gay senator, joining Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin in the congressional LGBT caucus. I'm not so sure about Georgia. Let's say that Michelle Nunn makes it close in Georgia and loses narrowly, but helps the state's blue transformation accelerate. So 2014 ends with the Dems still at 52-48, but the GOP still controls the house due to gerrymandering.

Let's say that by this point, Romney is able to work with the moderate blue dog dems as well as the moderate members of the GOP, and he is able to start getting legislation passed.

In 2016, let's say Romney faces Sanders, with middling approval ratings. He runs against the extremists in both parties to find a common ground, which resonates among voters.

[BigVic]

President W. Mitt Romney (R-UT)/Vice President Paul D. Ryan (R-WI) 353 (51.6%)
Former Sec of State Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY)/Fmr Gov Thomas J Vilsack (D-IA) 184 (46.3%)


If Romney does well in his first term, I can see this happening. Romney changes his state to UT for his re-election campaign.

[Agonized-Statism]

2012

President Barack Obama (D-IL) / Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE)
Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) / Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) ✓

2016

President Mitt Romney (R-MA) / Vice President Marco Rubio (R-FL) ✓
Fmr. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY) / Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Romney wins 2012 on a combination of Tea Party energy and a worse geopolitical situation (global economy crashes again in 2011 as a contagion effect from a Greek default and exit from the Eurozone, terrorism, maybe a Crimea-style Russian or Chinese power play) but doesn't end up starting a war and losing 2016 badly like he realistically would. The Romney administration is somewhat libertarian, improving latino outreach in particular, and benefits from uninterrupted economic recovery. Clinton overcorrects for Obama's perceived dovishness and social liberalism and makes the race with Sanders much closer. It's no competition when Romney's "common sense" plan for energy independence is juxtaposed with Clinton's plan for a no-fly zone in Syria.

[LAB-LIB]

First of all, I will assume Hillary doesn't run in 2016. Romney beat Obama and I have a feeling this would've scared the DNC into pushing Sanders forward so I will assume he becomes the nominee. Sanders runs a populist campaign, running against the more establishmentarian Romney. 2016 in real life but reversed. Sanders polls well in the Rust Belt but finds it difficult to make inroads in the South and Mountain West. The end result is similar to the real life 2004 result, but with Pennsylvania and Maine's 2nd district voting Republican as well. Sanders does well in the Upper Midwest but still struggles in Iowa and Ohio. Romney's more populist view on subsides in this scenario helps him barely snatch Iowa and also proves to be a big help in Ohio, which goes to Romney by 1%. Also, Maine's 2nd falls to Romney as Sanders' policies prove too much for upstate Maine. Virginia, North Carolina and Florida all go to Romney by over 5%. Sanders also loses out in Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico thanks to Romney doing a lot better among Hispanics in this scenario. Sanders does extremely well in New Hampshire, winning it by over 5% but he isn't as lucky in Pennsylvania which goes to Romney by about 3% thanks to doing rather poorly in the Philadelphia suburbs, losing Bucks, Monroe and Chester.

Final result: 313-225 Romney and Romney wins the popular vote by 3.

Romney: The Department of Agriculture uses subsidies to rationally manage food production. It would be foolish to reverse that policy.
Iowa Farmer: You know there's a certain panache to this answer that I find appealing.

[Devout Centrist]

[BigVic]

A reverse of 2016