How differently would a President Romney be doing things?

[DevotedDemocrat]

How different would things be now had Romney been a year into his first term?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

No immigration reform, that's for sure.
No minimum wage increase for federal workers either.

[SWE]

More or less the same. Romney wouldn't have much more luck getting his agenda through Congress than Obama has.

[IceSpear]

More or less the same. Romney wouldn't have much more luck getting his agenda through Congress than Obama has.

Well, in a world where Romney wins, Republicans probably take the Senate as well. Even if the Senate was 50-50, McConnell would immediately abolish the filibuster and push through the entire right wing agenda, which would be promptly passed by the House as well.

[windjammer]

More or less the same. Romney wouldn't have much more luck getting his agenda through Congress than Obama has.

Well, in a world where Romney wins, Republicans probably take the Senate as well. Even if the Senate was 50-50, McConnell would immediately abolish the filibuster and push through the entire right wing agenda, which would be promptly passed by the House as well.

Impossible. Democrats would have kept their majority.

[pbrower2a]

More or less the same. Romney wouldn't have much more luck getting his agenda through Congress than Obama has.

Well, in a world where Romney wins, Republicans probably take the Senate as well. Even if the Senate was 50-50, McConnell would immediately abolish the filibuster and push through the entire right wing agenda, which would be promptly passed by the House as well.

Democrats would still hold the Senate now. Obamacare would be abolished and a national Right to Work law would be in effect, but other parts of the GOP agenda (reduction or elimination of the minimum wage, privatization of the Interstate Highway System and the Post Office, outlawry of abortion, and the shift from a federal income tax to a federal sales tax) might not make much headway.

We would likely have an economic meltdown by now, and Mitt Romney would be extremely unpopular. Republicans would be staring at the loss of the House of Representatives. America would have net emigration.

[Vosem]

Obamacare would've been gotten rid of. Some of the pushes that took place, for gun control or immigration reform, wouldn't've taken place, but I don't know what would've replaced them -- even in early 2009, nobody really saw healthcare reform as the issue that would come to dominate basically the entire Romney Presidency. Kerry's push for an Israeli-Palestinian deal would not have happened in a Republican Department of State. Romney would probably have gotten Republicans to do clean debt limit increases without too much fuss; or, if they really wanted to attach things to those increases, the attached things would become law. One thing I definitely see happening is the Keystone XL pipeline.

I don't think Romney would be too popular by now; the NSA scandal would have happened on time no matter who was the President and I think it would be more damaging in a Republican than a Democratic Administration because of differing perceptions of the parties. Not quite fair, but there you have it. Republicans would probably be looking at October 2013 levels of polling; substantial Democratic gains in the House but barely not enough to take it, but the Senate still a stalemate or narrow Republican gains. Romney would probably've gotten Republican congressional majorities for the full four years.

Just for the repeal of Obamacare at the start of his term, though, it would've been worth it.

[7,052,770]

How would Obamacare have been abolished without a Republican senate, much less a 60-seat Republican majority?

I still don't honestly believe that Romney opposes Obamacare (as late as 2008 he touted Romneycare as his proudest achievement), so my gut says Dems put up a big fight and Romney lets it survive (with a tweak or two spun as a "repeal") in exchange for something else.

[Peeperkorn]

Assad would have been killed by a drone.

[Lief 🗽]

Many of the young men on this forum would fighting and dying in house to house battles in Tehran.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Many of the young men on this forum would fighting and dying in house to house battles in Tehran.

Really, Lief? The draft?

[IceSpear]

More or less the same. Romney wouldn't have much more luck getting his agenda through Congress than Obama has.

Well, in a world where Romney wins, Republicans probably take the Senate as well. Even if the Senate was 50-50, McConnell would immediately abolish the filibuster and push through the entire right wing agenda, which would be promptly passed by the House as well.

Impossible. Democrats would have kept their majority.

In a universe where Romney wins, the Senate races would not have been static. Downballot effects. ND/MT/OH/IN/MA/NM/PA/VA/WI all could've gone Republican had Romney done substantially better. The Republicans only would've needed 5 of those 9 (since VP Ryan would be the tiebreaker).

Dems will probably still have a bare majority. But if they don't, the entire right wing agenda is rammed through Congress and signed within a year. Republicans play for keeps, Democrats don't.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The closest Senate races the Democrats won were North Dakota, Montana, Indiana, Wisconsin, Virginia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Massachusetts.  At least half those seats probably would have gone or stayed R if Romney won.

[Deus Naturae]

More or less the same. Romney wouldn't have much more luck getting his agenda through Congress than Obama has.

Well, in a world where Romney wins, Republicans probably take the Senate as well. Even if the Senate was 50-50, McConnell would immediately abolish the filibuster and push through the entire right wing agenda, which would be promptly passed by the House as well.

Democrats would still hold the Senate now. Obamacare would be abolished and a national Right to Work law would be in effect, but other parts of the GOP agenda (reduction or elimination of the minimum wage, privatization of the Interstate Highway System and the Post Office, outlawry of abortion, and the shift from a federal income tax to a federal sales tax) might not make much headway.

We would likely have an economic meltdown by now, and Mitt Romney would be extremely unpopular. Republicans would be staring at the loss of the House of Representatives. America would have net emigration.

I'm not sure if this is meant to be a joke, or...

Anyway, I agree with Thomas Jefferson and Vosem.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How different would things be now had Romney been a year into his first term?

We'd be at war with Iran and Syria by now. And Obamacare would be dead.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

On the Senate issue, the only seats the Republicans might have gained in a marginal Romney victory are Montana, North Dakota, and maybe Virginia and Wisconsin.  Even if they get both of the possibles, that still leaves a 51-49 Senate with Reid in charge. No way Obamacare gets repealed in that situation.  Plus, the faults in implementation of the website and the exchanges will get squarely placed on Republican sabotage.  Mourdock and Akin cost the GOP any chance to take the Senate in 2012.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It depends on the scenario that allows Romney winning. No Akin might be a part of that. Without Akin, it is possible that Mourdock's statements are given far less attention and that combined with the more typical 15% to 20% GOP margins that winning Republican tickets get in IN would likely drag Mourdock over the finish line. 

[MATTROSE94]

How different would things be now had Romney been a year into his first term?

We'd be at war with Iran and Syria by now. And Obamacare would be dead.

Romney might have also sent troops into Russia, China, Egypt and North Korea as well, thus starting World War 3.

[Blue3]

The executive action going on would be very different/

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Romney probably has a better relationship with the Congressional Democrats than he does the GOP.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's worth pointing out that even if the GOP didn't take the majority, Romney would have gutted the law via executive orders and obviously none of the relevant secretaries would have supported it, so it would've been as good as dead anyway.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

How different would things be now had Romney been a year into his first term?

We'd be at war with Iran and Syria by now. And Obamacare would be dead.

Romney might have also sent troops into Russia, China, Egypt and North Korea as well, thus starting World War 3.

I do hope you're being sarcastic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's worth pointing out that even if the GOP didn't take the majority, Romney would have gutted the law via executive orders and obviously none of the relevant secretaries would have supported it, so it would've been as good as dead anyway.

Except we'd still have the individual mandate and no preexisting conditions in place.  So basically all he'd be able to do would get rid of the stuff in Obamacare that people generally want, while leaving intact the parts that people and insurers respectively don't like.

[King]

Further deregulation,  further unnecessary tax cuts, and continued deficit ballooning.  All ending with another gigantic terrible recession that Hillary Clinton would be given exactly 15 minutes to solve before the public turns on her and goes back to the Republicans for another fix.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Well, for one, the GOP probably wouldn't be working so hard to sabotage the U.S. government because they'd be the ones in control of it.