What if Mitt Romney won the 2012 Election?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given that the 2016 election is over and Barack Obama's 2 term Presidency is coming to an end, I have to ask. What if Mitt Romney defeated President Obama in 2012? Would the economy have still continued to recover and if so, would the recovery be stronger or weaker? How would Romney handle Foreign Policy, especially Syria, Iraq, Iran, ISIS, and how would he deal with Russia? Can the Democrats retake the house in a Romney Presidency and can he get re elected in 2016? What is the fate of Obamacare?
 
A Romney presidency almost certainly means a much better showing in the House and Senate in 2012, so he'll have a firm margin to work with. It's likely he gets 3 Supreme Court nominees (Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy probably all retire on his watch, so they can be replaced by a Republican), so he'll also have a very friendly Court, as swing-justice Kennedy is replaced by a more reliable conservative.

The House is so gerrymandered that I don't see the Democrats retaking it in 2014; it would take a ridiculous wave (something on the order of a 7-8% margin, IIRC) to elect a Democratic majority. Both 2012 and 2014 were fairly poor years for the Democratic Senate map, so a significant Republican gain in 2012 probably flips the Senate, and means it will be harder for the Democrats to retake it in 2014.

Foreign policy: the US probably intervenes in Syria and gets more active against ISIS from day one; that could be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how it goes, but I'd bet on "quagmire." No Iran deal, which means Iran continues towards nuclear weapons; if the US is actively fighting in Syria and Iraq, they probably don't also invade Iran, but who knows?

Domestic policy will be a Republican wet dream; they have unified control of the government. Most of Obama's OTL domestic policy from 2011 on was done by executive order and rule-making due to Republican obstruction; obviously none of it happens (so no Deferred Action, no overtime rules, etc.). Obamacare is gone, but who knows what replaces it, if anything. Tax cuts and spending cuts galore.

Clinton still runs in 2016, and probably has an easier time winning the nomination. The incumbent advantage is probably strong enough for Romney to win reelection, however.
 
A Romney presidency almost certainly means a much better showing in the House and Senate in 2012, so he'll have a firm margin to work with. It's likely he gets 3 Supreme Court nominees (Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy probably all retire on his watch, so they can be replaced by a Republican), so he'll also have a very friendly Court, as swing-justice Kennedy is replaced by a more reliable conservative.

The House is so gerrymandered that I don't see the Democrats retaking it in 2014; it would take a ridiculous wave (something on the order of a 7-8% margin, IIRC) to elect a Democratic majority. Both 2012 and 2014 were fairly poor years for the Democratic Senate map, so a significant Republican gain in 2012 probably flips the Senate, and means it will be harder for the Democrats to retake it in 2014.

Foreign policy: the US probably intervenes in Syria and gets more active against ISIS from day one; that could be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how it goes, but I'd bet on "quagmire." No Iran deal, which means Iran continues towards nuclear weapons; if the US is actively fighting in Syria and Iraq, they probably don't also invade Iran, but who knows?

Domestic policy will be a Republican wet dream; they have unified control of the government. Most of Obama's OTL domestic policy from 2011 on was done by executive order and rule-making due to Republican obstruction; obviously none of it happens (so no Deferred Action, no overtime rules, etc.). Obamacare is gone, but who knows what replaces it, if anything. Tax cuts and spending cuts galore.

Clinton still runs in 2016, and probably has an easier time winning the nomination. The incumbent advantage is probably strong enough for Romney to win reelection, however.
Agreed on the Court and Domestic Policy. On Foreign Policy, I also lean on it being a quagmire and I also agree that Clinton will win the Democratic nominee and have an easier time winning it, with many Democrats giving it to her due buyer's remorse over 2008. I think the 2016 election will be close with either one of them winning. If Clinton doesn't get complacent like OTL and Romney's Presidency is anything but excellent, she could pull it off (especially if a Romney Presidency divides the GOP base and its establishment), but Romney won't be dead in the water either.
 
Would Romney be able to keep the Republican base behind him as President? Would a Romney Presidency fire up and unify Democrats or divide them?
 
I think it's possible that a Sanders win is more likely, or of his wing of the party(perhaps a more well-known progressive like Warren runs) There is still the anti-establishment anger, that is likely intensified as a result of Romney's presidency, and the Democratic establishment is seen as having failed the voters. Plus Clinton won't be able to hug herself to Obama. However, there is also a case to be made Clinton will win the nomination. The email scandal may not come out and she remains popular with the public and TTL without Obama she is the most influential Democrat and emerges as the party leader and is seen as the 'savior' of the party.

I think Romney would be able to keep the Republican base. While Cruz and the like may want him to be more conservative he would be plenty conservative as President and be an effective standard-bearer for the party's agenda. Plus a primary challenge is very unlikely and there is now a tabboo on that. No serious primary challenge has, for good reason, been levelled against an incumbent President since 1980(Buchanan maybe but he wasn't very serious). The party will back him and focus their energy against the Democrats(especially if the Democrats regain either house of Congress if the midterms go badly and the incumbent party almost always loses the midterms)
 
Note that ITTL, Obama may not be seen as the "Establishment" candidate; in 2008 he had run as the anti-establishment figure against Hillary's establishment base. There's basically always at least one candidate in each Democratic primary who runs against the Democratic candidate (Sanders in 2016, Obama in 2008, Dean in 2004, Bradley in 2000, arguably even Tsongas in 1992). Obama's unusual in that he won the nomination, and his defeat in 2012 might be seen as a repudiation of the left-wing of the party (especially since a Romney victory pretty much requires things to be significantly worse in the US at the time), particularly since it will probably be blamed on Obamacare.

So Clinton is likely even stronger in the 2016 primary.
 
Was 2012 a booby prize much like 1976?

because of rise of ISIS,

because of anger over slow recovery of middle-class jobs (and would love to have the stats on this, both the slow recovery and the anger)
 
Was 2012 a booby prize much like 1976?

because of rise of ISIS,

because of anger over slow recovery of middle-class jobs (and would love to have the stats on this, both the slow recovery and the anger)
No, the economy still recovered, even if slowly. Honestly, I think 2016 will be more like 1976 (I'd also call 2004 a booby prize as well), the economy will most likely go into recession between now and 2020 and the international stage will probably grow even more unstable.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top