Obama is lucky these scandals came out after his reelection.
Do you think if they came out a year earlier, Romney could have won?
Do you think if they came out a year earlier, Romney could have won?
IRS and AP Scandals come out in 2012
- Thread starter Super_Cool
- Start date
I think its possible Romney would have won, but it would also depend on how much came out and how it was handled by both sides because if Romney and the Republicans came off the wrong way there may have been a backlash causing President Obama to win in a landslide.
The IRS Scandal would have been much larger during an election. It's just too easy to play it off as a Democratic Watergate. That's not even close to what it is, but the GOP could make it look like that waaaay too easily and no one could blame them for it because not doing so would be like throwing away an opportunity slapping them in the face.
The AP Scandal, which is actually one worth caring about, doesn't have as much election value. I don't think it would get played up as much, but I've been surprised before by things getting blown out of proportion (hello Benghazi).
The AP Scandal, which is actually one worth caring about, doesn't have as much election value. I don't think it would get played up as much, but I've been surprised before by things getting blown out of proportion (hello Benghazi).
It could work, IRS and AP scandals, maybe with a little bit of Benghazi thrown in would have probably made a GOP victory easy.
It would have fired up the Tea Party.
They did not love Romney, but with the IRS thing... it would have been enough to get them really on board.
Depends when, Romney, with his tax history, isn't really the poster boy for attacking the IRS. If earlier, it could shake up the primaries and Romney could lose out.
Last edited:
Yes, but personal peccadilloes kinda pale in comparison to the government attempting to use the tax authority to intimidate the opposition. Or at least that's how it'll be spun.
No. These "scandals" do not, as far as we can tell, rise to the level of deliberate decision-making by the President. That's what differentiates Watergate (and even Monica Lewinsky) from, well, politics.
Moreover: the 2012 election was, and would have been in virtually any alternate universe, a referendum on the economy. There's a reason that Benghazi got zero traction IOTL, and it's not for lack of trying on the part of the Romney campaign and Fox News.
Republicans would also suffer from trying to make hay over the scandals in 2012 by the self-inflicting wounds they've suffered as a result of their hyperbolic rhetoric used since Day 1 against Obama. Since the campaign rhetoric was already ratched up to 11 over death panels, Bill Ayres, the Weather Underground, "You Didn't Build That!," Benghazi, etc. etc., it's not like the campaign had yet another gear they could use for "no, no, we really mean it this time, we think this really is a scandal!" It's going to come out as so much noise -- even if there is more to the IRS story than there is to, say, "death panels."
Finally, as whanz points out, Romney is a pretty awful candidate to try and raise the IRS issue, given his refusal to release his own tax records. I could even see this backfiring and helping Obama, much as Romney's ham-fisted attempts to raise Beghazi did IOTL.
In terms of alt.2012: keep in mind that the final election results almost perfectly matched the 538.com projections from November of 2011 -- which suggests that over the course of the year, over all the campaign moments, debates, gaffes, etc. -- that this was a remarkably stable race that was fairly decisive in Obama's favor from start to finish.
The GOP overreached IOTL and has basically overplayed their hand at this point. In an election, I think the reaction would be far worse by the GOP leadership and conservative media, and we may see Gingrich-style backlash.
Orville_third
Banned
The AP Scandal, combined with the DHS action against Occupy could lead to a third party candidate siphoning some Obama votes away. Then again, Obama could lose two percent to third parties and still beat Romney.
That's an interesting point. If the scandals torqued up the Tea Party Romney could lose the nomination to someone more palatable to the TP setting the stage for a Democratic landslide in November, especially if the Dems were smart enough to blame it all on a few rogue operatives in the DoJ and the IRS.
Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
Obama would have even luckier if these "scandals" came out during the elections.
The IRS "Scandal" would have backfired, because it's Romney, who refused to reveal his tax returns, who is the Republican nominee. If Romney tries to turn it into a Benghazi, then it will fail. Miserably. It isn't even a proper scandal.
The AP "scandal" is the most like a scandal, but with Benghazi, "You didn't build that", Big Bird, 47%, Binder full of woman, and Romney's tax returns, it will probably get ignored like OTL.
And, there wouldn't have been these scandals now to distract the House, the Senate, and the White House from more important issues like immigration, the economy, and the deficit.
The IRS one should really hurt the Republicans when people start asking what their nonprofits are doing to earn that designation.
Unfortunately the IRS rules themselves aren't clear on how much needs to go to charity, and what counts as that in the first place.
But that Republican money isn't going to feed the poor, plant trees, or other concrete charitable activity would be obvious.
Unfortunately the IRS rules themselves aren't clear on how much needs to go to charity, and what counts as that in the first place.
But that Republican money isn't going to feed the poor, plant trees, or other concrete charitable activity would be obvious.
The thing is... the IRS situation is very reminiscent of the tactics of Richard Nixon. And the AP/Fox News thing will turn a number of journalists against Obama as well. Especially if Holder has the same sort of screw-up like he had in first denying, then admitting he authorized the Rosen affidavits...
And while there may not be a direct order... if the letters from Democratic Senators emerge, it becomes a problem for them. Then Obama's anti-Tea Party rhetoric could be seen as being along the lines of "Will nobody rid me of this troublesome priest?"...
This is the more interesting question for me. Romney is probably the winner still, although the chances are lower, but if he did still win he'd be weaker for it. The anti-Wall Street/DC beltway crowd would be pounding him even more, especially over IRS issues.
The question is who would benefit most? That is really hard to say - my guesses would be if Perry cold avoid self-destructing he has the most to gain from primaries but Gingrich and Santorum could certainly gain more... despite the pleas of some Ron Paul isn't going to win it all but he could gain more traction, stealing more from the others.
Romney swatted down from being the front-runner, combined with 'zombie candidates', it'd be a more interesting primary season, to say the least.
Depends when they come out. Have this break in October - perhaps while Romney's gaining momentum from the first debate - and you could possibly close the gap between the candidates, because some of the questions in the remaining debates could be changed to address the scandals.
The truth is though, if it comes out any time between the end of the primary season and September, it probably makes zero difference.
The truth is though, if it comes out any time between the end of the primary season and September, it probably makes zero difference.
Here's the thing: If these scandals break any time in 2012, then I think there is a stronger desire to get Obama out among the Tea Party.
The type of campaign being described is very extensive, and it wasn't just the Tea Party that was targeted. The National Organization for Marriage had its unredacted Form 990 leaked to its political opponents. The form in question included information that Mitt Romney had donated to it.
The real key would be in the debate. If Obama claims, as he has in OTL, that he only found out about it from press reports, Romney would, in all likelihood, pounce in the debate.
Romney: So you are admitting that you are okay with your subordinates keeping something of this magnitude from you?
Obama: Obviously, I am not.
Romney: Then why haven't they been fired?
Obama: I think we need a full investigation before we...
Romney: What more do you need to know. Confidential tax data about one political group got leaked to their opponents. That's already a violation of the law. This happened in April. It's now October - why has it taken six months to hold the head of the IRS accountable for a serious violation of the law on his watch?
Obama: Are you saying I'm okay with it?
Romney: I don't know... it's either that, or you have a tolerance for incompetence that seems to be a theme of this administration - from Solyndra to the IRS to Benghazi. Quite frankly, if you worked for me, and tolerated that pattern of incompetence, I'd fire you - and the american people should do so this November!
At some point, Obama loses his cool during the exchange when pressed on the issue.
Except that since these so called scandals came up Obama's approval ratings have risen. The talking points are large manufactured so it would be hard to keep outrage going long term. Also the IRS thing didn't happen until the 2012 election so it would be hard to gin up controversy for it.