Romney vs Clinton 2016 Electoral map

[UWS]

How would the 2016 Electoral college would have looked like between Incumbent President Mitt Romney and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

[Matty]

Assuming the economy performs exactly as it did in real life between 2013 and 2016, Romney probably wins fairly comfortably.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Romney landslides Hillary

Romney/Ryan 422 58%
Hillary/Kaine 116    41%


The economic recovery from 2012-2016 likely puts Romney approval at 60% come election day, and with Hillary massive unpopularity Romney landslides Hillary.

[Matty]

I doubt Romney would win.  He wouldn't inspire the kind of massive turnout among downtrodden rural whites who were "inspired" by his message and charisma.  Romney would have cut the margins in educated suburbs that Clinton won, but that wouldn't have been enough to win PA, WI, MI, and FL I bet.  He'd win all the other states Trump won though, maybe not the other district in Maine.

Why would incumbent romney lose to an unpopular hillary?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I doubt Romney would win.  He wouldn't inspire the kind of massive turnout among downtrodden rural whites who were "inspired" by his message and charisma.  Romney would have cut the margins in educated suburbs that Clinton won, but that wouldn't have been enough to win PA, WI, MI, and FL I bet.  He'd win all the other states Trump won though, maybe not the other district in Maine.

Why would incumbent romney lose to an unpopular hillary?

I didn't see the part about him being an incumbent, I just thought he'd be running for like the 80th time.  I still think the map above is f'ing ridiculous.  I guess it would depend on what states he won to become President in the first place.  Incumbent maps tend to look an awful like the map 4 years earlier.  Bush won largely the same states in 2004 and Obama won largely the same states in 2012. 

I would need to know what states Romney won in 2012 to complete this hypothetical.

This would be more like 1968 to 1972, where Romney barely wins in 2012 then wins in a landslide in 2016 .  With Romney approval probably being above 60%, and Hillary being so unpopular Romney does win by 17 points

[MeanBeanMachine]

http://

This map is not a joke and neither is New York.  Romney was much more appealing than Trump to Democrats who weren't happy with Clinton.  John Kasich would've also gone higher than 350.  Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan would've won too by roughly the same margin as Trump.

[MeanBeanMachine]

I'll say 57-42 Romney in the popular vote.

[7,052,770]

Probably a Romney win if the economy's doing OK.

If Obama serves two terms and Romney and Clinton win the nominations in the spring of 2016, she probably beats him.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

http://

This map is not a joke and neither is New York.  Romney was much more appealing than Trump to Democrats who weren't happy with Clinton.  John Kasich would've also gone higher than 350.  Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, Jeb Bush, and Paul Ryan would've won too by roughly the same margin as Trump.

-Oh, God, another establishment Republican with no real understanding of the electorate has joined. Would Ryan have won Wisconsin? Would Bush have won MI? Romney had far, far less crossover appeal to Dems than Trump; that's why he lost.

However, Romney would likely have won re-election against HRC, just like O would have against Trump.

I'm not suggesting Trump was an especially strong candidate. I am suggesting Romney's appeal was concentrated in red states, not swing states. He alienated fewer Republicans and attracted fewer Ds.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Romney would have lost by 4-6%. The swing is not consistent across states, but it should be obvious what that entails losing.

[RINO Tom]

I'll assume Romney wins with this map in 2012 (barely flipping the four states he came closest to winning, giving him 275 electoral votes):

I will also assume that, as I actually believe, a Mitt Romney who is safely in office is incredibly competent, very inoffensive and relatively popular.  I also think Hillary runs as a totally different candidate in 2016, then, closer to her 2008 primary self.  Here is how I see 2016, then:

[jamestroll]

Romney landslides Hillary

Romney/Ryan 422 58%
Hillary/Kaine 116    41%


The economic recovery from 2012-2016 likely puts Romney approval at 60% come election day, and with Hillary massive unpopularity Romney landslides Hillary.

Yes. Romney would have won in a landslide for re-election. We made a huge mistake in the 2012 election.

[Jeppe]

I feel like there still would've been a lot of anti-establishment resentment going on that a 2008-esque Hillary would've pounced on, that would've prevented a double digit victory. Because the white working class still would've been struggling, regardless of Obama or Romney being president.

[Kringla Heimsins]

Do you all really think the Rust Belt Working Class would have stuck with ol' Mittens ?

Hillary Clinton (or whoever else wins the D nomination, I think it's unlikely that Clinton would have won without an Obama endorsement) would have adopted a very populist message. Doing otherwise would be stupid and even suicidal.

With Obama having been beaten by a wealthy tax-cutting businessman four years prior, I can see a blue-collar rage mounting in favor of Bernie Sanders, or maybe Sherrod Brown or some other new deal democrat.

[RINO Tom]

Do you all really think the Rust Belt Working Class would have stuck with ol' Mittens ?

Hillary Clinton (or whoever else wins the D nomination, I think it's unlikely that Clinton would have won without an Obama endorsement) would have adopted a very populist message. Doing otherwise would be stupid and even suicidal.

With Obama having been beaten by a wealthy tax-cutting businessman four years prior, I can see a blue-collar rage mounting in favor of Bernie Sanders, or maybe Sherrod Brown or some other new deal democrat.

Not really.  However, they're only a slice of the electorate.  I think incumbent Romney can win Wisconsin with just a great margin in the Milwaukee suburbs, for example, but wouldn't be able to flip Michigan (hence, my map).  As for Ohio, it should be PERFECTLY obvious that a Republican can win Ohio with a MUCH worse margin than Trump had with the so-called "WWC voters."  Many, many Republicans have won Ohio with a more traditional GOP coalition (let's not forget how many of Ohio's voters are in suburbs, especially the heavily conservative Cincinnati ones), and it doesn't matter if you win the state by 1% or 10% at the end of the day.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Do you all really think the Rust Belt Working Class would have stuck with ol' Mittens ?

Hillary Clinton (or whoever else wins the D nomination, I think it's unlikely that Clinton would have won without an Obama endorsement) would have adopted a very populist message. Doing otherwise would be stupid and even suicidal.

With Obama having been beaten by a wealthy tax-cutting businessman four years prior, I can see a blue-collar rage mounting in favor of Bernie Sanders, or maybe Sherrod Brown or some other new deal democrat.

Not really.  However, they're only a slice of the electorate.  I think incumbent Romney can win Wisconsin with just a great margin in the Milwaukee suburbs, for example, but wouldn't be able to flip Michigan (hence, my map).  As for Ohio, it should be PERFECTLY obvious that a Republican can win Ohio with a MUCH worse margin than Trump had with the so-called "WWC voters."  Many, many Republicans have won Ohio with a more traditional GOP coalition (let's not forget how many of Ohio's voters are in suburbs, especially the heavily conservative Cincinnati ones), and it doesn't matter if you win the state by 1% or 10% at the end of the day.

-Do you realize the WOW counties are under 13% of WI's population? This is why a Republican, to win in WI, has to win the vast majority of WI's counties.

[RINO Tom]

Do you all really think the Rust Belt Working Class would have stuck with ol' Mittens ?

Hillary Clinton (or whoever else wins the D nomination, I think it's unlikely that Clinton would have won without an Obama endorsement) would have adopted a very populist message. Doing otherwise would be stupid and even suicidal.

With Obama having been beaten by a wealthy tax-cutting businessman four years prior, I can see a blue-collar rage mounting in favor of Bernie Sanders, or maybe Sherrod Brown or some other new deal democrat.

Not really.  However, they're only a slice of the electorate.  I think incumbent Romney can win Wisconsin with just a great margin in the Milwaukee suburbs, for example, but wouldn't be able to flip Michigan (hence, my map).  As for Ohio, it should be PERFECTLY obvious that a Republican can win Ohio with a MUCH worse margin than Trump had with the so-called "WWC voters."  Many, many Republicans have won Ohio with a more traditional GOP coalition (let's not forget how many of Ohio's voters are in suburbs, especially the heavily conservative Cincinnati ones), and it doesn't matter if you win the state by 1% or 10% at the end of the day.

-Do you realize the WOW counties are under 13% of WI's population? This is why a Republican, to win in WI, has to win the vast majority of WI's counties.

Yes, and an incumbent Romney could easily win with closer to Walker's map than Trump's, margins included.  WOW counties wouldn't provide the bulk of support, they'd provide the margin.  Trump picked up THREE counties from Walker's re-election map and won by a much smaller margin.  Winning WOW by a lot is more important than barely flipping traditionally Democratic or swing counties.  It's not like Republicans were only winning the WOW counties, they just should be winning them by more than Trump did.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Do you all really think the Rust Belt Working Class would have stuck with ol' Mittens ?

Hillary Clinton (or whoever else wins the D nomination, I think it's unlikely that Clinton would have won without an Obama endorsement) would have adopted a very populist message. Doing otherwise would be stupid and even suicidal.

With Obama having been beaten by a wealthy tax-cutting businessman four years prior, I can see a blue-collar rage mounting in favor of Bernie Sanders, or maybe Sherrod Brown or some other new deal democrat.

Not really.  However, they're only a slice of the electorate.  I think incumbent Romney can win Wisconsin with just a great margin in the Milwaukee suburbs, for example, but wouldn't be able to flip Michigan (hence, my map).  As for Ohio, it should be PERFECTLY obvious that a Republican can win Ohio with a MUCH worse margin than Trump had with the so-called "WWC voters."  Many, many Republicans have won Ohio with a more traditional GOP coalition (let's not forget how many of Ohio's voters are in suburbs, especially the heavily conservative Cincinnati ones), and it doesn't matter if you win the state by 1% or 10% at the end of the day.

-Do you realize the WOW counties are under 13% of WI's population? This is why a Republican, to win in WI, has to win the vast majority of WI's counties.

Yes, and an incumbent Romney could easily win with closer to Walker's map than Trump's, margins included.  WOW counties wouldn't provide the bulk of support, they'd provide the margin.  Trump picked up THREE counties from Walker's re-election map and won by a much smaller margin.  Winning WOW by a lot is more important than barely flipping traditionally Democratic or swing counties.  It's not like Republicans were only winning the WOW counties, they just should be winning them by more than Trump did.

-That's a more reasonable argument, though it's actually four counties.

[Skill and Chance]

If the economy was still the same, there's just no way the Trump Dems all break for Romney.  It would be good enough for a 1st term incumbent to win, but it would only be a 2004 size win for Romney, with a 2-3% PV margin and 290ish EV.  Remember, Romney came off almost as elitist as Clinton did.  I would expect Clinton to be the anti-trade candidate from the beginning and win much of the Midwest.  A Jim Webb type Dem would have surely beaten Romney, and it would be regarded as a missed opportunity.

A better question would be what would have happened if it was Romney running for reelection with a Dem senate and the vacant SCOTUS seat was Ginsburg's instead of Scalia's?  I think any Dem, including Clinton, would win in that scenario.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Romney landslides Hillary

Romney/Ryan 422 58%
Hillary/Kaine 116    41%


The economic recovery from 2012-2016 likely puts Romney approval at 60% come election day, and with Hillary massive unpopularity Romney landslides Hillary.

Romney would do massively better than that in Utah.

yah I know just forgot to change percentages

[Vosem]

Do you all really think the Rust Belt Working Class would have stuck with ol' Mittens ?

Hillary Clinton (or whoever else wins the D nomination, I think it's unlikely that Clinton would have won without an Obama endorsement) would have adopted a very populist message. Doing otherwise would be stupid and even suicidal.

With Obama having been beaten by a wealthy tax-cutting businessman four years prior, I can see a blue-collar rage mounting in favor of Bernie Sanders, or maybe Sherrod Brown or some other new deal democrat.

Many (a majority of Obama '12/Trump '16) of those Rust Belt working-class whites voted for Mittens-type Republicans in 2014; virtually all of the Republican candidates on offer in the Midwest that year were fairly hardcore fiscal conservatives. Romney also wouldn't have bled suburbanites at all from 2012. Map would've been along these lines:

273-265 Romney win, even as he wins the national PV by 3-4 points. Hillary indeed takes a populist tack, as you predict, and is helped by the Electoral College. But it's nowhere near enough.

[Figueira]

I think Vosem's map is pretty accurate, give or take Virginia (which would decide the election). I don't see Romney winning by a lot, and he certainly isn't winning Washington, Rhode Island, or Illinois.

[NOVA Green]

Do you all really think the Rust Belt Working Class would have stuck with ol' Mittens ?

Hillary Clinton (or whoever else wins the D nomination, I think it's unlikely that Clinton would have won without an Obama endorsement) would have adopted a very populist message. Doing otherwise would be stupid and even suicidal.

With Obama having been beaten by a wealthy tax-cutting businessman four years prior, I can see a blue-collar rage mounting in favor of Bernie Sanders, or maybe Sherrod Brown or some other new deal democrat.

Many (a majority of Obama '12/Trump '16) of those Rust Belt working-class whites voted for Mittens-type Republicans in 2014; virtually all of the Republican candidates on offer in the Midwest that year were fairly hardcore fiscal conservatives. Romney also wouldn't have bled suburbanites at all from 2012. Map would've been along these lines:

273-265 Romney win, even as he wins the national PV by 3-4 points. Hillary indeed takes a populist tack, as you predict, and is helped by the Electoral College. But it's nowhere near enough.

This map looks to be the best thus far, but I would likely flip the CD from Maine if Clinton shifts populist....

Not so sure about VA, but I suspect Romney would have done sufficiently well in the NoVA suburbs/exurbs, not to mention suburban Richmond to carry him over the top.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think Vosem's map is pretty accurate, give or take Virginia (which would decide the election). I don't see Romney winning by a lot, and he certainly isn't winning Washington, Rhode Island, or Illinois.

Romney would win by at least 15-16 points nationally

[Figueira]

I think Vosem's map is pretty accurate, give or take Virginia (which would decide the election). I don't see Romney winning by a lot, and he certainly isn't winning Washington, Rhode Island, or Illinois.

Romney would win by at least 15-16 points nationally

No, those sorts of landslides don't happen nowadays, and I see no reason to think that he would win by even a landslide by modern-day standards unless you think that Romney is some sort of perfect person who will never make any mistakes or upset anyone as President.