Leftists only: which election would you rather have lost?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's your chose, etc.

[MAINEiac4434]

2016. Romney's competence make him ultimately more dangerous. I think.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Again, ask me 4 years from now.

[bagelman]

2016. Romney 2012 would lead to Hillary 2016 which would lead to Romney serving from 2013-2021.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Barring a major shakeup of Trump Nancy Pelosi and Cory Booker will be empowered.  And the GOP majorities will be erased at the cost of a SCOTUS vacancy of course, 2016

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Huh, not quite the numbers I expected.

[America Needs R'hllor]

2016 because the world needed these 4 years of Obama. And for a blatantly selfish reason- the same-sex marriage decision in America really increased my self-confidence.

[DavidB.]

2016 because the world needed these 4 years of Obama. And for a blatantly selfish reason- the same-sex marriage decision in America really increased my self-confidence.

And what did Obama's second term have to do with that?

[Sir Mohamed]

2016. Romney's competence make him ultimately more dangerous. I think.

This.

Had Romney won, Obamacare would be gone now. And I still think that President Romney in 2016 would have been tougher to beat than President Trump in 2020.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2016 because the world needed these 4 years of Obama. And for a blatantly selfish reason- the same-sex marriage decision in America really increased my self-confidence.

And what did Obama's second term have to do with that?

nothing , it was the courts that did that

[Mr. Smith]

This last one.

Trump still gives a few more sh*^s about actual workers (if more to keep up the big con than out of actual sincerity), he's motivated actual Leftist direction, and Obama getting his second term meant Obamacare could live to become to popular to truly remove. Now we're on track to get single-payer when the Dems get the next trifecta. Even if we might have to wait until 2024 to get there.

[Mr. Smith]

Trump still gives a few more sh*^s about actual workers (if more to keep up the big con than out of actual sincerity), he's motivated actual Leftist direction, and Obama getting his second term meant Obamacare could live to become to popular to truly remove. Now we're on track to get single-payer when the Dems get the next trifecta. Even if we might have to wait until 2024 to get there.

Not one thing that you claim here is true.

The ACA might be polling well, but that doesn't imply much if premiums continue to increase past the point of affordability for more Americans, as they almost certainly will within the next five years.

The ACA's gains in insurance coverage have already peaked; the rate of insured adults stagnated in 2016. Premiums will continue to grow rapidly, driven by underlying health care costs. This is not the road to single payer, just greater inequity in access to care.

Those premiums would've pole-vaulted past affordability without ACA anyway, and just what exactly would've been there to help with all those costs coming from Romney and whoever the heck the hypothetical House Speaker would be...I mean unless somehow, 2014 was a landslide midterm that flipped the House and put Pelosi back in place or Bernie Sanders' movement popped earlier than it did.

[Rookie Yinzer]

2016.

I would rather Hillary not be president. She is vehemently hated by the other side and would have worse turnout in the midterms than Obama. Trump's win may have galvanized the left though we will not know the full effects until later.

[angus]

2016.  Well, I'm not a leftist, but trying to think as a leftist I voted for 2016. 

[parochial boy]

2016 because the world needed these 4 years of Obama.

This, not just about SSM but really about the economy, 2012 was the hight of the Republican's deficit obsessionism, and at a time where the world economy was still very fragile, we really needed the US to stay the course in terms of recovery. A Romney/Republican administration would have tanked the economy by pushing through harmful spending cuts.

[Lachi]

2016.

I feel that if we had won, republicans could have been set in terms of congress for at least another decade.

[mvd10]

If Romney had the same majorities as Trump Obamacare repeal would have passed by June 2013 with Republican-friendly tax reform/cuts and something like the Ryan budget minus the most extreme parts coming next. Romney is a lot more competent than Trump, and repealing Obamacare is easier if the law isn't fully implemented.

But on the other hand Romney wouldn't have done the same amount of damage the the position of the US in the world as Trump. Sure, Romney is a Republican which would make European voters distrust him but he would get along just fine with Merkel and Hollande. And I'm pretty sure Romney wouldn't be as toxic as Dubya in Europe, Romney's foreign policy would have been more careful than Bush's (despite Romney's strong talk). And I think the elitist out-of-touch rich businessman still is more popular in Europe than your average ''God, guns and gays'' cowboy (like people here viewed Bush). By 2016 people in Europe still would not have liked him, but they would realize that he's not that bad  (and most Europeans probably don't really care about domestic policy in the US, Bush had a higher approval rating under Labour voters than under Tories because he stood with Tony Blair, nobody cared about his tax cuts in the US).

So it's basically a pick between someone who would accomplish a lot of conservative goals and ''hurt'' (according to leftists atleast) American citizens or someone who is damaging the US' position in the world. I'm not a leftist, so I'd take Romney over Trump any day (on both domestic and foreign policy).

[parochial boy]

2016 because the world needed these 4 years of Obama.

This, not just about SSM but really about the economy, 2012 was the hight of the Republican's deficit obsessionism, and at a time where the world economy was still very fragile, we really needed the US to stay the course in terms of recovery. A Romney/Republican administration would have tanked the economy by pushing through harmful spending cuts.

I have no idea what the risk of nuclear war is in any given year under Trump's presidency - 1/10,000? 1/1,000? - but if I could wager on it, I'd put money on it being at least an order of magnitude higher than in any given year of Romney's presidency.

Moreover, I don't think that anyone has come to terms with the international implications of what Trump is doing to the United States and the Republican Party, but it is clearly different from what Mitt Romney would have done.

Maybe I'm underemphasizing the economic risk of an austerity presidency simply because I don't believe that Romney would have done much to address the deficit. Tax reductions accompanied by much smaller domestic spending cuts were always more likely.

Then again, Mitt Romney would have put Paul Ryan a heartbeat away from the presidency, and I am much more scared of him than I am of anyone in American government, Trump included. So should everyone else, but I have been on that rant before. If there's an incipient figure in US politics who has the potential to be remembered as a world historical figure on the nightmarish scale of a Stalin or Columbus, it is Paul Ryan.

To sort of echo what mvd10 said though, I don't really believe that Trump has the competence, or the attention span, to do quite that level of damage. I think we can pretty much rule out any nuclear conflict just because he is still surrounded by a top military brass who do know what they are talking about, and as far as any potential enemies would be, only North Korea are volatile enough to pose a real risk, and even in that case, I think China would step in before any emergency became too elevated.

The US may spend the next four years as somewhere between a laughing stock and a genuine antagonist, but it is only temporary after all. Remember that, for all the depths it plunged under GWB, its reputation was re-established very quickly after electing Obama.

Ultimately, I don't think Trump has the ability to do any lasting harm from a foreign policy point of view; whereas Romney could have deeply threatened the world economy (Trump still could of course, but even then, I doubt he has the ability to).

[mvd10]

Yeah, relations between the US and European countries probably will get back to normal if a Democrat gets elected (or even if Trump is impeached and Pence/Ryan/whoever isn't implicated becomes the next president) but Trump probably is doing more damage than Bush. Bush was loathed by European citizens but he atleast had a working relationship with most European leaders. Merkel and Bush were pretty close actually. The open distrust between European leaders and Trump is probably worse than anything we saw under Bush. Bush had the Iraq war though, Trump hasn't made a blunder like that (imo the war didn't even have to be a massive failure, Bush just screwed it up).

[Illiniwek]

Yeah as of right now I would say 2012, but if Democrats crush in '18 and '20, then I'll probably change my opinion.

[Hoosier_Nick]

I pretty much agree with the sentiment of everyone else who said 2016. If Romney won in 2012, we can basically guarantee the ACA would have been repealed and we would have had significant cuts to useful domestic programs when we needed it most during the recession. Trump is awful, but he is totally incompetent. Democrats will have (likely) significant gains in 2018 and 2020, whereas if Clinton won, Republicans would likely achieve large majority in both chambers. While 2014 may have been a little easier for Democrats if Romney was President, I think he would've been much, much more difficult to beat in 2016 than Trump will be in 2020 (if he's even the nominee.)

[Kingpoleon]

Don't forget Romney did indicate his support for a universal healthcare system - the Wyden-Bennett Act/the Healthy Americans Act.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

2016. Romney 2012 would lead to Hillary 2016 which would lead to Romney serving from 2013-2021.

[Maxwell]

mmm... 2012 actually. (#analysis time) I think a lot more grassroots anger and energy would have arisen in the years following Romney's election and Senator Sanders may actually have won the 2016 Democratic nomination. The question is, of course, whether Sanders would've knocked off President Romney. It also would've delayed the full alt-righting of American politics for a while.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

2016. Romney's competence make him ultimately more dangerous. I think.

The terrifying legislation Mitt Romney and his Ayn Rand worshiping VP would dwarf what Trump has/will be able to do.