Romney-Crist 2008

Looking at the Documentary Mitt, it seems Charlie Crist was supposed to endorse Romney before the Florida Primary but at the last minute back stabbed him and went for McCain (possibly due to a VP deal, possibly not).

What if Romney had offered Charlie Crist the Veepship, got the endorsement, won Florida, and the 2008 ticket was Romney-Crist?
 
I don't think that winning FL by any means guarantees Romney's nomination--the big event is Super Tuesday--but whoever the GOP nominates is going to lose by a substantial margin in November given the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression...
 
Considering conservative distrust of Romney was a significant problem six years after he left the governor's mansion, it's probably even more of a problem two years after. His strategy is still probably to swing to the right, turning off moderates, but he certainly picks up less conservative support than McCain did. Therefore I think it's likely he loses even worse than McCain.

The real question then is who does the GOP pick in 2012? There's no other conservative mainstream candidate from OTL, so the establishment would have to find someone else to rally around. Perry came out as a firebrand IOTL and could maybe pivot rhetorically to the middle, but I doubt it. There were about 30 solid speculative candidates, no one very exciting. Certainly one or a few of them would've run if Romney was out, but considering they're second-string Romneys, we have to wonder if this isn't the year a firebrand gets the nomination. From historical events it would appear to be Santorum's year, but I'm also often bullish on Huckabee, if he decides to get into the race. I feel like most of the scenarios where Santorum does well are undermined by the fact that Huckabee will see that, jump in, and steal his base.

While a firebrand candidate is still going to lose in a campaign with the same fundamentals as OTL's 2012, it does change the nature of that loss. We probably see trends in 2012 that reflect what's going to happen in 2016. Pundits realize what's happening among the white working class sooner. 2016 just doesn't end up looking like quite as big a shock.

Perhaps the Democrat in 2016 keys into this and alters strategy enough to counteract it?

I realize a POD of 2008 makes for a different 2016, but stopping the trends that gave us the character of the 2016 election is a bit like stopping a battleship. You need a lot of time and you need to plan early.
 
Romney was pretty effective at running to the right of Perry on immigration and I'm not sure another candidate would do the same thing. Perry would be an interesting counter to Obama because he was somewhat progressive on matters of criminal justice, immigration, and medicinal marijuana.

Perry-Pawlenty would be a fairly balanced ticket I think.

Without 2008 Palin might be less of a joke of a name come 2012 and maybe she gets the veep pick then.


Huckabee - Palin would be a doozy of a ticket. Social Conservative and Populist turnout would be sky-high and Huckabee, while not as protectionist as Trump, was certainly more of a globalization skeptic.


Could Christie possibly run in 2012 if there's no Romney?
 
Considering conservative distrust of Romney was a significant problem six years after he left the governor's mansion, it's probably even more of a problem two years after. His strategy is still probably to swing to the right, turning off moderates, but he certainly picks up less conservative support than McCain did. Therefore I think it's likely he loses even worse than McCain.

Romney was a conservative alternative to McCain, whom many in the party deeply distrusted (and still do). Romney is an interesting guy in '08 since he ran on a change platform as an outsider - he may be more competitive against Obama but will ultimately lose anyway barring a miracle
 
Considering conservative distrust of Romney was a significant problem six years after he left the governor's mansion, it's probably even more of a problem two years after. His strategy is still probably to swing to the right, turning off moderates, but he certainly picks up less conservative support than McCain did. Therefore I think it's likely he loses even worse than McCain.

People sometimes forget that there was a difference between the Romney 2008 and 2012 candidacies for the nomination. In 2008, Romney ran as the conservative alternative to the "moderates" McCain and Giuliani (or at least the candidate of relatively secular conservatives; the religious right preferred Huckabee, who was not as conservative on economic issues); in 2012 he was the choice of the moderates. I would say that Romney's Massachusetts record was actually more a problem for him among conservatives in 2012 than in 2008, because of the claims that Romneycare was the basis for Obamacare. (This was less of an issue in 2008 because Obamacare did not yet exist. Even in 2012 it didn't hurt him as much among conservatives as some had expected.)
 
Romney was a conservative alternative to McCain, whom many in the party deeply distrusted (and still do). Romney is an interesting guy in '08 since he ran on a change platform as an outsider - he may be more competitive against Obama but will ultimately lose anyway barring a miracle

Romney certainly tried to position himself as more conservative on certain issues than McCain and began the process of underplaying his performance as governor in 2008, but even by 2012 he was still mistrusted by many conservatives (in addition to being mistrusted as a Mormon by some fundamentalists). His pivot away from his record would have only sped up had he been closer to receiving the nomination. We know how moderates reacted to that IOTL, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do the same here. He fails to gain moderates as per OTL 2012, likely performing worse among them than McCain, and certainly doesn't do any better than McCain among conservatives.

People sometimes forget that there was a difference between the Romney 2008 and 2012 candidacies for the nomination. In 2008, Romney ran as the conservative alternative to the "moderates" McCain and Giuliani (or at least the candidate of relatively secular conservatives; the religious right preferred Huckabee, who was not as conservative on economic issues); in 2012 he was the choice of the moderates. I would say that Romney's Massachusetts record was actually more a problem for him among conservatives in 2012 than in 2008, because of the claims that Romneycare was the basis for Obamacare. (This was less of an issue in 2008 because Obamacare did not yet exist. Even in 2012 it didn't hurt him as much among conservatives as some had expected.)

That's a good point on Obamacare comparisons. But the simple lack of it doesn't give us a positive enthusiasm bump vis a vis Romney and conservatives ITTL. If he wins the primary it's thanks to low-enthusiasm but dedicated conservative voters, and his campaign model is likely to pick up less general election support than McCain's IOTL. Between low-enthusiasm conservatives, turned-off "maverick" moderates, and religious conservatives who opt to stay home or vote third party, I think it's reasonable to say this is a bigger loss.
 

Just thinking about Romneycare, I still think it's likely he runs as far and as fast from this legacy as he can, but if I'm wrong and it comes up in the campaign, that immediately pushes the debate to the left, backstopping the mainstream Republican option at Romneycare. Centrist Dems will feel better about supporting OTL's Obamacare, and liberals will feel comfortable pushing further to the left. How exactly this plays out on the ground is wide open. It could exacerbate the Democratic split and kill any chance of a deal. It could cause all parties to come together on a compromise with less acrimony.
 

Edward IX

Banned
I suspect that Christie did not run in 2012 is because he thought Mitt would pick him to be VP. From the book "Double Down", which is the 2012 follow up to "Game Change" also by Mark Halperin (despite his current metoo problem, is still a great journalist.) The Romney campaign tried to pick Christie, they just figured out there were problems with Christie, as we found out later.

I really believe Christie could have gotten in even after New Hampshire and been nominated in '12. Remember when he was at the Reagan Library and of all the "Your Country needs you!" comments? I think Christie was being Machiavellian there. I think that he fully expected Romney to loose, thus giving him a clear shot at the '16 nomination. Say what you will about Paul Ryan, he doesn't want to be President.

If Romney had been the nominee in '08 he looses and looses big. I don't think anyone could have won that year for the Republicans. I mean I am very much a Republican and I didn't vote for McCain. As someone pointed out, he is not really well liked by his own party, everyone seems to have forgotten about the whole Keating 5 scandal and whole thing he did to W. In 2000, plus the fact McCain periodically forgets he is a Republican. I would have been more likely to vote for him if he had picked Lieberman. That would have been a "Country First" move.

Really, I don't think Romney not being in '12 mix does much. I am not sure that anyone did not get in because of Romney. It's not like he was not easily beatable. Santorum is still going no where after Iowa and Perry still can't remember what Departments he wants to get rid of.

Honestly, the Republican field in 2012 is about as weak as you get.
 
Last edited:
Top