Do you wish that Romney had won in 2012?

[darklordoftech]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

except Trump did his Birther thing in 2011 not 2013

That's why i said four less years of birtherism, not no birtherism.  Of course, given Romney's ancestry, I suppose Trump could try arguing Mitt was really Mexican and that Mexico hadn't sent us its best and try a primary challenge against a sitting President, but he'd be more likely to just wait until 2020 if he thought he'd be unable to gain traction on the Democratic side.

I don’t think Dems would ever be willing to give the time of day to a man who had launched a racist conspiracy theory against one of the most popular politicians in their party.

Granted, some would not, but it would be easy enough for many to take it as xenophobic hardball politics. Xenophobia is far more tolerated than racism in this country in all parts of the political spectrum.  Also, if Obama only got one term, he would likely be dismissed as a flash in the pan rather than retaining any great popularity.  He'd likely be as popular in the Democratic Party of 2016 as Carter was in 1984; which wasn't much. Like Carter, Obama would be seen as someone who had tried to lead the Democratic Party in a new direction at failed at the ballot box.

Hardball politics against the first black President would kill him in the South Carolina primary, as would the fact that it was blatantly racially-motivated xenophobia and what Trump said about the Central Park Five. Also, Trump’s history with women would hurt him, his lack of qualifications for the Presidency or a record to prove the sincerity of his ideology would hurt him because Democrats care more about those things, and if he tries the Iraq War attack, Hillary would say, “I agree that it was a big fat mistake. Voting for it is my greatest regret. It’s easy for you to say that it was a mistake with hindsight, but you supported it at the time. If you want proof that I’m not a neocon, look at how I helped negotiate the Iran Deal.“

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First off, with four less years of birtherism, Trump likely would've found some other way to keep in the spotlight. Second, the non-birther part of his shtick could've played in either party. So a Romney 2012 victory doesn't guarantee no Trump in 2016, just that if Trump ran and won, it wouldn't have been as a Republican. Trump defeating Romney in 2016 isn't an impossibility, just unlikely. Sure, his message would've been different if he ran as a Democrat, but since his only core belief is in himself, it could've happened, especially if only the Democratic primaries were a viable route for his attempt at brand promotion that proved to be both more successful than expected and ultimately his undoing.

Against Romney in 2016, Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan would've worked quite well as a Democratic campaign theme. The only needed change would've been that the hats would need to be blue.

So really, you can't argue that a Romney victory in 2012 certainly keeps Trump out of the Oval Office, only that he'd have to take a different path to get there and that he'd promote different policies once there if he did win.

I'm as big a critic of the left/Dems as anyone and I even I would say they definitely weren't crazy enough in 2016 to nominate someone like Trump. They might get their Trump a few cycles down the line.

The Dems in our 2016 hadn't experienced four years of a Romney presidency, and in this alternative timeline while Trump would've had the same basic personality, he'd have been pushing considerably different issues than in the actual timeline, something closer to what Sanders pushed in both 2016 and 2020. If in this alternative timeline, Donald is facing off versus just Hillary and Bernie for the 2016 nomination, I'd say he's probably the favorite to win the Democratic nomination in that field. Of course, in such an alternative 2016, I doubt the field of Democratic contenders is so sparse. But just like with our Republicans in our 2016, the more mainstream Democrats in the field, the better Donald likely does, precisely because they'll all be focusing on each other and hoping to attract Donald's base once his vanity campaign ends.

except Trump did his Birther thing in 2011 not 2013

That's why i said four less years of birtherism, not no birtherism.  Of course, given Romney's ancestry, I suppose Trump could try arguing Mitt was really Mexican and that Mexico hadn't sent us its best and try a primary challenge against a sitting President, but he'd be more likely to just wait until 2020 if he thought he'd be unable to gain traction on the Democratic side.

I don’t think Dems would ever be willing to give the time of day to a man who had launched a racist conspiracy theory against one of the most popular politicians in their party.

Granted, some would not, but it would be easy enough for many to take it as xenophobic hardball politics. Xenophobia is far more tolerated than racism in this country in all parts of the political spectrum.  Also, if Obama only got one term, he would likely be dismissed as a flash in the pan rather than retaining any great popularity.  He'd likely be as popular in the Democratic Party of 2016 as Carter was in 1984; which wasn't much. Like Carter, Obama would be seen as someone who had tried to lead the Democratic Party in a new direction at failed at the ballot box.

Hardball politics against the first black President would kill him in the South Carolina primary, as would the fact that it was blatantly racially-motivated xenophobia and what Trump said about the Central Park Five. Also, Trump’s history with women would hurt him, his lack of qualifications for the Presidency or a record to prove the sincerity of his ideology would hurt him because Democrats care more about those things, and if he tries the Iraq War attack, Hillary would say, “I agree that it was a big fat mistake. Voting for it is my greatest regret. It’s easy for you to say that it was a mistake with hindsight, but you supported it at the time. If you want proof that I’m not a neocon, look at how I helped negotiate the Iran Deal.“

Trump's vitriol is what got in him in the spotlight politically, but it isn't what got him over the finish line in 2016. He sold himself as someone who would get things done, despite how obvious it was that he couldn't. That part of his con would've worked just as well in either party.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Yes. Obama did not do anything significant in his second term policy-wise, and Romney would be unable to with a Democratic Senate.

As a result, Democrats would gain seats in the senate in 2014 and flip the house.

Democrats would win with a generic D in 2016 (D-USA) and keep the senate & house due to the poor, slumping Romney economy.

Democrats would retain congress in 2018 due to economic growth and high turnout.

Democrats would tie the senate in 2020 and narrowly win the house, while re-electing the president.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

yes

[Lechasseur]

Yes