Will Kürlich Kerl
Banned
What happens if Mitt Romney wins the 2012 presidential elections?
How will he respond to the IRS and the AP scandals?
How will he respond to the IRS and the AP scandals?
WI: Mitt Romney wins 2012?
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
Then we hear Democrat party supporters, liberals, socialists, ect whine and complain about the incompetent president, instead of Republicans, conservatives, and neo facists whine and complain about the incompetent president. No change in the whiner factor as far as I can see.
I guess that's what Wallace meant when he said that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two.
Focusing on the scandals op mentioned. Without Obama wining the GOP has no need to try to gin up controversy to tear him down so no one ever hears or knows about any of these things.
Because the Democrats will just sit there and pass up a chance to slam a GOP president
Arguably, they wouldn't happen, or not to Romney anyway, as both occurred under Obama's tenure. Obama's legacy is tarnished somewhat, and Romney may use it as political capital for some bill or minor reforms.
Because the Democrats will just sit there and pass up a chance to slam a GOP president
Given that the GOP controlled the committees that brought the scandals forward I can't see a Democratic senator or congressmen being able to have the clout needed to initiate any sort of investigation.
A bigger issue for Romney is PRISM. Under Obama it is mostly seen as a Democrate contiueing the policies of a Republican, The "They're all the same" thesis. But for Romney it becomes a Republican once again seeming to act against civil liberties to advance an ideological war.
I really don't think Romney would be blamed for the IRS discriminating against conservative groups. It'd be brought up to attack Obama, but not him.
I agree PRISM would be a bigger issue and the cloud would extend to Romney for not stopping it. That said, as much as I like Obama, I think Romney would've handled the scandal better.
I agree PRISM would be a bigger issue and the cloud would extend to Romney for not stopping it. That said, as much as I like Obama, I think Romney would've handled the scandal better.
I made a thread in PolChat in the ancient before time. It's not necessarily fleshed out enough, but I've built up quick a list of resources in it.
I will reply to this thread, though, with a shiny, shiny map post.
(Like a lone warrior in the wastes, Norton goes alone)
First, I'd like to show this. It's the "Key and Peele" sketch that would have gone up had Romney won.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...n-key-and-peele-election-video_n_2094454.html
The difficulty with the 2012 electoral map swinging to Romney is that the election was simultaneously close and not close. In the United States overall, Romney and Obama were close in the popular votes, but the states are another story and that is where the election is won and lost. By election night, Obama's states are firmly in his camp, Romney's are firmly in his camp. The closest state was Florida, where it was 49% to 49%, with the state won on the .00's. The remaining close states are a different story. Those tend to be the winner in the low 50 percentile and the loser in the high 40 percentile, with enough points between them that its politically a decisive gap.
The four closest states were Florida (.88%), North Carolina (2.04%), Ohio (2.98%) and Virginia (3.87%). The remaining close areas are Colorado (5.37%), Pennsylvania (5.39%), Iowa (5.81%), Nevada (6.68%), Wisconsin (6.94%), Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District (7.16%), Minnesota (7.69%), Georgia (7.82%), Maine's Second Congressional District (8.56%), Arizona (9.06%), Missouri (9.38%), and Michigan (9.50%).
I've highlighted those closest states (/districts) on this map in purple.
Taking that all into account, I made a map based purely on the close states, without any other alternate reality possibilities taken into account except pushing those numbers one way or the other on that OTL map (so no demographic shifts of an alternate VP or anything like that). That's a topic for further discussion, and I don't know enough about the possibilities or probabilities. I tend to stay in the more shallow area where things are established as they were in the OTL, but you change things like Bin Laden getting killed or no 47% comment or something like that. Shifting the three closest states of Obama's to Romney (Florida, Ohio and Virginia) still leaves Obama with over 272 electoral votes to *Romney's 266, making Obama to still win. That forces moving into the least closest states, with the closest among those being Colorado. Shifting that to Romney gives him 275 electoral votes to *Obama's 263 electoral votes, making him the winner.
Romney/Ryan: 275
Obama/Biden: 263
Though the coattail effect is not nearly as much today as it was in previous decades, these state shifts could influence and alter the outcome of certain Congressional/Senate elections within them (Senate more so than Congress; gerrymandering sees to that). The states that were flipped to Romney in this scenario, based on the fact that they went for Romney, would likely indicate that the other states are closer than the OTL to go for Romney. I'm not talking about changing all Obama states to a flat 50%, barely held percentile, but rather something like some states being a percentile or more, or a .00 of a percentile or so closer to going for Romney. And that could alter perhaps some elections on the Senate and House. I believe this was already discussed before, but I don't believe details were discussed or the elections where things could have changed and the effect of their changing.
Currently, by the way, I am looking over a number of articles about "What if Romney Wins" from before the election. They're a bit buried by time, but I am trying my best. The one's I've found so far have also been across the board politically and in their bias. That offers the additional benefit of showing how factions view this and could view things going forward in this alternate scenario. I have tried, however, to avoid the most heinously outlandish and blatantly biased things, so no Ed Schultz and no World Net Daily. The issue with them is working through the bias, naivity and ignorance to get towards and logical factuality (a newspaper could say all it wanted that Nixon winning 1960 would lead to a massive recession; it doesn't mean that in thinking of a world where Nixon won that that is actually any indicator). Though I admit some things I am looking at which are biased to see what that bias thought. I will try to summarize those at some point.
I will note one thing that keeps showing up over and over is that if Romney won, a bunch of Obama supporters would riot. That appears on Conservative blogs and on the Alex Jones stuff and with Rush Limbaugh. I think that's silly and a baseless knee jerk fear.