AHC/WI: Romney/Pawlenty Win The 2012 Election

The tin says it all. With a POD no earlier than May 3rd, 2011, have Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty win the 2012 Presidential Election against President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden and describe the Presidency that ensues.
 
Given Obama's lukewarm popularity going into 2012, Romney could certainly have won had he simply run a better campaign devoid of fatal gaffes like "47%" and "binders full of women." Romney gave a great performance in the first debate and for a time was tied with Obama in the polls, but again his PR issues not to mention his inability to respond to the Democrats' attacks on his business record did him in as a candidate. Without these mistakes, it's plausible to think that come January 20, 2013 America would've had its first Mormon President.

Undoubtedly, a Romney victory in 2012 would've unleashed a whole host of butterflies. Trump would likely not have run in 2016 if a Republican were President, and even if he did he'd probably lose to a unified GOP establishment. (A big reason he won in OTL was because the Republican establishment was divided between something like 15-16 other candidates.) Without Trump and with Romney, the GOP would be a bit less hardline but still sharply divided between the centre right establishment and far right grassroots.

As for the Democrats, they'd be demoralized four years early. Whatever decision they eventually make in 2020 - to remain centrist or go left - would've already happened by now. A one term President Obama would be viewed much like Carter or Hoover: someone who had good intentions and respectable accomplishments, but ultimately failed to solve the fundamental problems America faced.

That said, it's unlikely that Romney would've gotten anything done as President. Congress would still be divided between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Any attempt to repeal Obamacare would fail as it did under Trump; in fact in this ATL scenario Romney would be viewed as less successful than OTL Trump as he wouldn't be able to pass tax reform thanks to Democratic obstruction. If he pushes for intervention in Syria the Democrats would block him, if he pushes for TPP that would die too. Going into 2016, which would still be a year in which an angry electorate wants change, Romney would be deeply unpopular and he'd probably lose to any Democrat. In short, Romney would've been a failure. But America would've made some symbolic progress having elected a Mormon President, not to mention that Trump and his combination of right-wing populism and cronyism would not have come to pass.
 

samcster94

Banned
Given Obama's lukewarm popularity going into 2012, Romney could certainly have won had he simply run a better campaign devoid of fatal gaffes like "47%" and "binders full of women." Romney gave a great performance in the first debate and for a time was tied with Obama in the polls, but again his PR issues not to mention his inability to respond to the Democrats' attacks on his business record did him in as a candidate. Without these mistakes, it's plausible to think that come January 20, 2013 America would've had its first Mormon President.

Undoubtedly, a Romney victory in 2012 would've unleashed a whole host of butterflies. Trump would likely not have run in 2016 if a Republican were President, and even if he did he'd probably lose to a unified GOP establishment. (A big reason he won in OTL was because the Republican establishment was divided between something like 15-16 other candidates.) Without Trump and with Romney, the GOP would be a bit less hardline but still sharply divided between the centre right establishment and far right grassroots.

As for the Democrats, they'd be demoralized four years early. Whatever decision they eventually make in 2020 - to remain centrist or go left - would've already happened by now. A one term President Obama would be viewed much like Carter or Hoover: someone who had good intentions and respectable accomplishments, but ultimately failed to solve the fundamental problems America faced.

That said, it's unlikely that Romney would've gotten anything done as President. Congress would still be divided between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Any attempt to repeal Obamacare would fail as it did under Trump; in fact in this ATL scenario Romney would be viewed as less successful than OTL Trump as he wouldn't be able to pass tax reform thanks to Democratic obstruction. If he pushes for intervention in Syria the Democrats would block him, if he pushes for TPP that would die too. Going into 2016, which would still be a year in which an angry electorate wants change, Romney would be deeply unpopular and he'd probably lose to any Democrat. In short, Romney would've been a failure. But America would've made some symbolic progress having elected a Mormon President, not to mention that Trump and his combination of right-wing populism and cronyism would not have come to pass.
Alt 2014 would probably have Dems do quite well in fact.
 
Given Obama's lukewarm popularity going into 2012, Romney could certainly have won had he simply run a better campaign devoid of fatal gaffes like "47%" and "binders full of women." Romney gave a great performance in the first debate and for a time was tied with Obama in the polls, but again his PR issues not to mention his inability to respond to the Democrats' attacks on his business record did him in as a candidate. Without these mistakes, it's plausible to think that come January 20, 2013 America would've had its first Mormon President. [1]

Undoubtedly, a Romney victory in 2012 would've unleashed a whole host of butterflies. Trump would likely not have run in 2016 if a Republican were President, and even if he did he'd probably lose to a unified GOP establishment. (A big reason he won in OTL was because the Republican establishment was divided between something like 15-16 other candidates.) Without Trump and with Romney, the GOP would be a bit less hardline but still sharply divided between the centre right establishment and far right grassroots. [2]

As for the Democrats, they'd be demoralized four years early. Whatever decision they eventually make in 2020 - to remain centrist or go left - would've already happened by now. A one term President Obama would be viewed much like Carter or Hoover: someone who had good intentions and respectable accomplishments, but ultimately failed to solve the fundamental problems America faced. [3]

That said, it's unlikely that Romney would've gotten anything done as President. Congress would still be divided between a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. Any attempt to repeal Obamacare would fail as it did under Trump; in fact in this ATL scenario Romney would be viewed as less successful than OTL Trump as he wouldn't be able to pass tax reform thanks to Democratic obstruction. If he pushes for intervention in Syria the Democrats would block him, if he pushes for TPP that would die too. Going into 2016, which would still be a year in which an angry electorate wants change, Romney would be deeply unpopular and he'd probably lose to any Democrat. In short, Romney would've been a failure. But America would've made some symbolic progress having elected a Mormon President, not to mention that Trump and his combination of right-wing populism and cronyism would not have come to pass. [4]

[1]: I agree with this. Obama was vulnerable in 2012 and was beatable. Some better PR moves from the Romney campaign, a little less damage to Romney from the primaries, and a few mistakes on Obama's part (he ran a brilliant campaign for a vulnerable incumbent), Romney could win, though it'd be close.

[2]: I agree there'd be butterflies, but not that many. Yes Trump doesn't run for President and depending on how a Romney Presidency goes or depending on Trump himself, Trump may even turn on the GOP (though the Democrats are sure as hell not welcoming him back into their party). I doubt the GOP is less hardline. The Tea Party was still a thing and Romney would have to at least in part credit it for his success, and self deportation aside, Romney ran pretty hard line on Immigration, though he did so in ways that didn't come off as racist.

[3]: Agree that Democrats would be demoralized four years early. That said, I doubt there'd be much of a debate as to which direction the party should go in at least not nearly as much as there is now. I think the consensus among most Democrats would be that had Hillary won in 2008, she'd have made a better President and if it were her sitting in the Oval Office in 2012, she'd likely be re elected President. As for how a One Term Obama is remembered, he'd be seen more like Bush 41 or a Ford, more likely the later.

[4]: Disagree here. Given how close Roy Moore came to getting elected in Alabama, Senators Murdoch and Akin aren't ASB and Heitkamp and Tester could easily get beat if Romney is getting elected, and also the Dems are feckless opposition. At worst, would be VP Ryan would be breaking ties.
 
I think the consensus among most Democrats would be that had Hillary won in 2008, she'd have made a better President and if it were her sitting in the Oval Office in 2012, she'd likely be re elected President.

I'm not sure there'd be a majority consensus around Clinton as a positive contrast to Obama, but I completely agree with you that despite Obama's ATL loss she'd enjoy very strong support within her party. No doubt, she'd still be the front runner for 2016. Would she win? Maybe, maybe not. She, in fact most Democrats, would have a good chance of beating Romney in the general election. However, several factors caused by the POD could serve to shake up the Democratic primaries. With a Republican in the White House more high profile Dems would seek to throw their hat into the ring come 2016, as opposed to OTL where besides Clinton the only serious Democratic contender was Sanders - an unknown dark horse who still managed to nearly beat her in Iowa. Others such as Booker or Warren might run and, if they did, would put up a formidable fight even in the event of a loss. Further, being SecState to the man who lost last time would be yet another one of Clinton's weaknesses against a fresh face appealing to those who want change, no matter the candidate. At least, the Democratic primaries would be far more competitive and force Clinton to struggle harder for the nomination, at the most the end result diverge significantly from what we saw unfold two years ago.
 
Alt 2014 would probably have Dems do quite well in fact.

You're absolutely right. As we see now in 2018 gerrymandering would still be a tremendous hurdle for Dems to jump when trying to retake the House, but in this ATL 2014 they almost certainly hold onto the Senate and make huge gains in the House. This would provide even bigger headaches for an already beleaguered President Romney; in the worst case scenario (for him at least, I don't want to pick sides here,) he becomes a lame duck from 2015-17. Ironically, he could be forced to govern just like Obama: relying on executive orders and his veto power to direct public policy.
 
No Hurricane Sandy, or it doesn't make landfall? Romney basically disappeared when the hurricane hit because he didn't want to look like he was campaigning during a natural disaster, and that gave Obama the chance to look Presidential by going to New Jersey and shaking Chris Christie's hand.

Romney 2012 probably gets a second term once the economy starts recovering, and him running against Joe Biden in 2016.
 
The tin says it all. With a POD no earlier than May 3rd, 2011, have Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty win the 2012 Presidential Election against President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden and describe the Presidency that ensues.
I don't know that Pawlenty would have made that much of a difference. Ryan was a new, fresh face who pretty much distanced himself from the Tea Party after the election.
 
No Hurricane Sandy, or it doesn't make landfall? Romney basically disappeared when the hurricane hit because he didn't want to look like he was campaigning during a natural disaster, and that gave Obama the chance to look Presidential by going to New Jersey and shaking Chris Christie's hand.

Romney 2012 probably gets a second term once the economy starts recovering, and him running against Joe Biden in 2016.

Unless you butterfly away the tragic end of his son’s fight with cancer, I doubt that Biden would run for the office, especially after a failed VP re-election campaign in 2012 (likely pretty damn demoralizing to lose your son and job).
 
No Hurricane Sandy, or it doesn't make landfall? Romney basically disappeared when the hurricane hit because he didn't want to look like he was campaigning during a natural disaster, and that gave Obama the chance to look Presidential by going to New Jersey and shaking Chris Christie's hand.

Romney 2012 probably gets a second term once the economy starts recovering, and him running against Joe Biden in 2016.

I agree with that, although President Benedict Arnold (the poster above me) makes a good point, and I find it hard to believe that Biden will be able to pull a Mondale, not only because of his son's cancer but also because of how such close connections to Obama could become damaging. I can see Hillary take the nomination under similar circumstances to those described above, most likely as the more liberal Hillary, as a contrast to President Obama's (in this timeline defeated) key promise of bipartisanship. Hillary would most likely lose to President Romney, who in this timeline is the man who was able to lead America to its recovery from the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression. In reality, this would just be the fluctuations of the market, and Romney just happened to have a resume strong enough for the American people to believe that their businessman President saved the nation from Obamavilles popping up. The way this election goes will probably depend on whether or not Romney will be able to connect with the American people. If I were a Re-Elect Romney 2016 campaign executive, I would release the "Mitt" documentary ASAP. If he still looks out of touch, this will be an election between the two most uncomfortable campaigners of all time.
 
Romney would basically be a Republican Bill Clinton in this timeline, in a sense that he'd preside over and get credit for a recovery he had little to do with.
 
Romney would basically be a Republican Bill Clinton in this timeline, in a sense that he'd preside over and get credit for a recovery he had little to do with.

Rather appropriately, he did it 20 years later. I see that comparison becoming very popular. A Governor from a state outside of the traditional party bloc (We can agree that by 1992 the solid south was no longer completely blue, right?) who has a very strong spouse and got their J.D. from an Ivy League school. They both defeated a vulnerable moderate incumbent in a time of economic downturn.
 
The top three states that are close to Republican winning are:
Florida, 0.88%
Ohio, 2.98%
Virginia, 3.87%
These would put Romney in the White House with 273 to Obama's 265

Romney's Cabinet:
President Mitt Romney
Vice President: Tim Pawlenty
Secretary of State: Jon Huntsman Jr.
Treasurer: Robert Zoellick or Erskine Bowles
Defense Secretary: General Michael Hayden (2nd Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama)
Attorney General: Kelly Ayotte or Chris Christie
White House chief of staff: Mike Leavitt

Other politicians that supported Romney:
- Joe Lieberman
- Kerry Healey
- Rick Perry
- Paul Ryan
 
The top three states that are close to Republican winning are:
Florida, 0.88%
Ohio, 2.98%
Virginia, 3.87%
These would put Romney in the White House with 273 to Obama's 265

Romney's Cabinet:
President Mitt Romney
Vice President: Tim Pawlenty
Secretary of State: Jon Huntsman Jr.
Treasurer: Robert Zoellick or Erskine Bowles
Defense Secretary: General Michael Hayden (2nd Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama)
Attorney General: Kelly Ayotte or Chris Christie
White House chief of staff: Mike Leavitt

Other politicians that supported Romney:
- Joe Lieberman
- Kerry Healey
- Rick Perry
- Paul Ryan

As a person living in NJ, I hope that Christie is appointed, he'd do less damage to the state as a whole, and we wouldn't have our current abhorrent Governor.
 
As a person living in NJ, I hope that Christie is appointed, he'd do less damage to the state as a whole, and we wouldn't have our current abhorrent Governor.
It'll most likely be Christie as I think the republican's would worry about the Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, replacing Ayotte shifting the senate from 51 - 47 to 52 - 46, giving a harder Senate to deal with.
 
It'll most likely be Christie as I think the republican's would worry about the Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, replacing Ayotte shifting the senate from 51 - 47 to 52 - 46, giving a harder Senate to deal with.

Plus Christie in 2012 was a promising new politician for the GOP, so it’d make sense to raise his profile like that.
 
Top