• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Trump runs in 2012

Ricardolindo

Well-known member
Location
Portugal
What if Donald Trump had ran for President in 2012, either as a Republican or as an independent? If the former, could he have won the nomination? Even if so, I don't see him winning the general election as 2012 was not 2016 and Obama was not Hillary. If the latter, he would have taken far more votes from Romney than from Obama and would have been blamed for Obama's victory and would have had no chance of winning the Republican nomination in 2016. Precisely because of that, I doubt he would have done this, though he reportedly considered it. If he ran for the Republican nomination, I could see him using an independent run as a threat but I doubt it would have been more than a bluff.
 
Short answer - I don't think so.

Trump got the nomination in 2016 through a number of very specific factors. The Republican elite was paying no heed to legitimate concerns from its base, they didn't seem to realise they needed to tend to their base and they didn't even bother to go looking for a candidate who could actually appeal to the base. Jeb Bush was the best they had and he crashed and burned. Meanwhile, the Democratic elite was more or less doing the same thing – they rammed Hilary down the throats of their own voters, which meant a lot of Sanders-supporters either stayed home or voted for Trump in an F*** you protest. Hilary really was astonishingly unpopular even before Trump started yammering on about ‘Crooked Hilary’ and there were lots of good reasons for Americans to detest her. Really, giving her the nomination was a dangerous gamble and the Democrats lost.

That wouldn’t hold true in 2012. Obama was showing his flaws, but he wasn’t ultra unpopular like 2016 Hilary. He also didn’t have any major weaknesses dragging him down. The GOP lacked a candidate who could best him and, in this year, Trump wouldn’t fit the bill. The only reason I can see Trump running as the Republican nominee would be the GOP deciding they were going to lose anyway, so throw the base a bone … might work, but they’d be lumbered with the ‘I told you so’ after Trump lost.

Chris
 
Highly possible he wins the nomination if he runs. Romney spent the whole of 2011 suffering eclipses from right-wing gadflies, and then heavily struggled against Santorum - a fundamentalist has-been who had been routed six years earlier in his own state - even in the big states. Romney was an honest-to-god terrible candidate and I think the Tea Party demonstrates how open to populism the Republican Party already was.

But yeah, he's not winning the general election.

Lots of butterflies from this, I think. Trump presumably going relatively close would make the Democrats much more wary of anointing a non-electoral candidate like Hillary, and even if Trump doesn't run in 2016, (He probably would) I doubt we'd see the sixteen thousand comedy moderate vote splitters we saw IOTL on the Republican side.
 
Last edited:
Highly possible he wins the nomination if he runs. Romney spent the whole of 2011 suffering eclipses from right-wing gadflies, and then heavily struggled against Santorum - a fundamentalist has-been who had been routed six years earlier in his own state - even in the big states. Romney was an honest-to-god terrible candidate and I think the Tea Party demonstrates how open to populism the Republican Party already was.

But yeah, he's not winning the general election.

Lots of butterflies from this, I think. Trump presumably going relatively close would make the Democrats much more wary of anointing a non-electoral candidate like Hillary, and even if Trump doesn't run in 2016, (He probably would) I doubt we'd see the sixteen thousand comedy moderate vote splitters we saw IOTL on the Republican side.

I agree Trump would not win the general election, but, in your opinion, would he do better or worse than Romney?
 
I agree Trump would not win the general election, but, in your opinion, would he do better or worse than Romney?

I have absolutely no idea. I'd really have to study the issue more. All I can say is I don't think he'd win. It's my opinion. Rate it as highly or not as you regard my judgement.
 
Anyway no Trump isn't going to win the nomination in 2012. Romney for all of his relative weakness was the frontrunner and heir apparent, while he faced gadflies of the month his polling numbers never actually went down. People knew him, and enough of them were fine with him that his lead was never really in doubt. Chris Christie's fall from grace with Bridgegate, and JEB(!)'s complete lack of charisma meant that it was an open and overcrowded field in 2016 where Trump's 25-30% of the vote base could steamroll his opponents even with a relative unpopularity in the primaries. 2012 see's several people (Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, Paul) try to harness the same tools and methods that Trump would use 4 years later and none of them managed it because the math wasn't right yet.
 
Trump was a guy who was really, really into birther conspiracies, so if he runs that's going to get very public and very nasty. That won't help him fight Romney, it certainly wouldn't help him if he did manage to beat Romney and now had to run against Obama while having been very publicly racist.
 
It's just untrue that Romney's polling numbers never went down. In 2011, there were long stretches where he was being outpolled nationally by Bachman, Gingrich, Perry and Cain - pretty much right up to the point the primaries started.


Trump in 2015 was in a much stronger position than this, both in terms of the absolute level he was polling at and the fact that he never consistently lost the national lead. Trump was usually polling around 35-40% nationally, while Romney struggled to get over 30%, and was sometimes polling significantly lower than that.

Also, results of the eventual nominees in the early states, 2012 and 2016:

Iowa
Romney: 25%
Trump: 24%

New Hampshire
Romney: 39%
Trump: 35%

South Carolina
Romney: 28%
Trump: 33%

Nevada
Romney: 50%
Trump: 46%

The difference is of course that Romney was seen as an acceptable nominee, and Trump was not, so the minority vote wins were stressed in one case and not in the other. In reality Trump had results at the sort of level of support nominees usually poll in the early states. (McCain in 2008 won almost exactly the same level of support as above in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada, but skipped Iowa, so went nowhere there)

Aside from the fact that, as above, Romney was continuously struggling nationally all through 2011 against joke candidates, as late as Super Tuesday Romney was losing states to Santorum and Gingrich, and nearly lost both Michigan and Ohio to Santorum - who started off in late 2011 as a deeply-underfunded fringe candidate. Romney was a weak candidate who was fortunate to be up against weak opposition on his right.
 
Last edited:
Anyway no Trump isn't going to win the nomination in 2012. Romney for all of his relative weakness was the frontrunner and heir apparent, while he faced gadflies of the month his polling numbers never actually went down. People knew him, and enough of them were fine with him that his lead was never really in doubt. Chris Christie's fall from grace with Bridgegate, and JEB(!)'s complete lack of charisma meant that it was an open and overcrowded field in 2016 where Trump's 25-30% of the vote base could steamroll his opponents even with a relative unpopularity in the primaries. 2012 see's several people (Santorum, Gingrich, Cain, Paul) try to harness the same tools and methods that Trump would use 4 years later and none of them managed it because the math wasn't right yet.
I disagree, but not bigly.

Trump had staying power that no 2012 rival to Romney could sustain. Remember how in 2012 there were a string of “flavor of the month” candidates? Trump managed to be a little bit of all of them (Paul, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, etc) rolled into one. I think if Trump entered the race, he’d be the clear alternative to Romney. While you’re right that none of Romney’s rivals threatened his lead long term, they weren’t quite aggressive enough to really do any damage. Trump would go in for the Achilles heel right now.
 
Highly possible he wins the nomination if he runs. Romney spent the whole of 2011 suffering eclipses from right-wing gadflies, and then heavily struggled against Santorum - a fundamentalist has-been who had been routed six years earlier in his own state - even in the big states.
I agree. It's already been a decade, but as I recall, Romney didn't seem to generate a lot of enthusiasm, and won the primaries largely by default. The same crowded field with crackpots competing against stale insiders that allowed Trump to emerge the winner in 2016 was already there in 2012, and he could have channeled the grievances of the Tea Party crowd.

Trump got the nomination in 2016 through a number of very specific factors. The Republican elite was paying no heed to legitimate concerns from its base,
What would you say were those legitimate concerns?
 
What would you say were those legitimate concerns?

In nearly 6 years of Trump - Trump the Canidate, Trump the President, Trump the ex-President - I have yet to find a better explaination of at least half the problem than this:


(I tried keeping the orginal formatting, but there were too many images and stray remarks - check it out for the pics and stuff)

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind
By:
Jason Pargin
October 12, 2016
How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind
I'm going to explain the Donald Trump phenomenon in three movies. And then some text.

There's this universal shorthand that epic adventure movies use to tell the good guys from the bad. The good guys are simple folk from the countryside ...


Lionsgate Films
... while the bad guys are decadent assholes who live in the city and wear stupid clothes:


Lionsgate Films
In Star Wars, Luke is a farm boy ...


LucasFilm
... while the bad guys live in a shiny space station:


LucasFilm
In Braveheart, the main character (Dennis Braveheart) is a simple farmer ...


Paramount Pictures
... and the dastardly Prince Shithead lives in a luxurious castle and wears fancy, foppish clothes:


Paramount Pictures
The theme expresses itself in several ways -- primitive vs. advanced, tough vs. delicate, masculine vs. feminine, poor vs. rich, pure vs. decadent, traditional vs. weird. All of it is code for rural vs. urban. That tense divide between the two doesn't exist because of these movies, obviously. These movies used it as shorthand because the divide already existed.

We country folk are programmed to hate the prissy elites. That brings us to Trump.

6
It's Not About Red And Blue States -- It's About The Country Vs. The City

Mark Makela/Getty Images
I was born and raised in Trump country. My family are Trump people. If I hadn't moved away and gotten this ridiculous job, I'd be voting for him. I know I would.

See, political types talk about "red states" and "blue states" (where red = Republican/conservative and blue = Democrat/progressive), but forget about states. If you want to understand the Trump phenomenon, dig up the much more detailed county map. Here's how the nation voted county by county in the 2012 election -- again, red is Republican:


Mark Newman / University of Michigan

Holy cockslaps, that makes it look like Obama's blue party is some kind of fringe political faction that struggles to get 20 percent of the vote. The blue parts, however, are more densely populated -- they're the cities. In the upper left, you see the blue Seattle/Tacoma area, lower down is San Francisco and then L.A. The blue around the dick-shaped Lake Michigan is made of cities like Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Chicago. In the northeast is, of course, New York and Boston, leading down into Philadelphia, which leads into a blue band which connects a bunch of southern cities like Charlotte and Atlanta.

Blue islands in an ocean of red. The cities are less than 4 percent of the land mass, but 62 percent of the population and easily 99 percent of the popular culture. Our movies, shows, songs, and news all radiate out from those blue islands.

And if you live in the red, that fucking sucks.

See, I'm from a "blue" state -- Illinois -- but the state isn't blue. Freaking Chicago is blue. I'm from a tiny town in one of the blood-red areas:


Inqvisitor / Wiki Commons

As a kid, visiting Chicago was like, well, Katniss visiting the capital. Or like Zoey visiting the city of the future in this ridiculous book. "Their ways are strange."

And the whole goddamned world revolves around them.

Every TV show is about LA or New York, maybe with some Chicago or Baltimore thrown in. When they did make a show about us, we were jokes -- either wide-eyed, naive fluffballs (Parks And Recreation, and before that, Newhart) or filthy murderous mutants (True Detective, and before that, Deliverance). You could feel the arrogance from hundreds of miles away.


Warner Brothers Pictures

"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage.


Mark Wolfe / FEMA

But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters.

To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

Related: 5 Crazy Ways the Colors Red and Blue Control Your Life
5
City People Are From A Different Goddamned Planet

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
"But isn't this really about race? Aren't Trump supporters just a bunch of racists? Don't they hate cities because that's where the brown people live?"

Look, we're going to get actual Nazis in the comment section of this article. Not "calling them Nazis for argument points" Nazis, but actual "Swastikas in their avatars, rooted against Indiana Jones" Nazis. Those people exist.

But what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine ... as long as they acted exactly like us.

If you'd asked me at the time, I'd have said the fear and hatred wasn't of people with brown skin, but of that specific tribe they have in Chicago -- you know, the guys with the weird slang, music and clothes, the dope fiends who murder everyone they see. It was all part of the bizarro nature of the cities, as perceived from afar -- a combination of hyper-aggressive savages and frivolous white elites. Their ways are strange. And it wasn't like pop culture was trying to talk me out of it:


Ruthless Records

It's not just perception, either -- the stats back up the fact that these are parallel universes. People living in the countryside are twice as likely to own a gun and will probably get married younger. People in the urban "blue" areas talk faster and walk faster. They are more likely to be drug abusers but less likely to be alcoholics. The blues are less likely to own land and, most importantly, they're less likely to be Evangelical Christians.

In the small towns, this often gets expressed as "They don't share our values!" and my progressive friends love to scoff at that. "What, like illiteracy and homophobia?!?!"

Nope. Everything.

Related: 5 Massive Problems We'd Face Living On Another Planet
4
Trends Always Start In The Cities -- And Not All Of Them Are Good

Brian Blanco/Getty Images
The cities are always living in the future. I remember when our little town got our first Chinese restaurant and, 20 years later, its first fancy coffee shop. All of this stuff had turned up in movies (set in L.A., of course) decades earlier. I remember watching '80s movies and mocking the "Valley Girl" stereotypes -- young girls from, like, California who would, like, say, "like" in between every third word. Twenty years later, you can hear me doing the same in every Cracked podcast. The cancer started in L.A. and spread to the rest of America.

Well, the perception back then was that those city folks were all turning atheist, abandoning church for their bisexual sex parties. That, we were told, was literally a sign of the Apocalypse. Not just due to the spiritual consequences (which were dire), but the devastation that would come to the culture. I couldn't imagine any rebuttal. In that place, at that time, the church was everything. Don't take my word for it -- listen to the experts:


via Gallup
Church was where you made friends, met girls, networked for jobs, got social support. The poor could get food and clothes there, couples could get advice on their marriages, addicts could try to get clean. But now we're seeing a startling decline in Christianity among the general population, the godless disease having spread alongside Valley Girl talk. So according to Fox News, what's the result of those decadent, atheist, amoral snobs in the cities having turned their noses up at God?

Chaos.


Drew Angerer/Getty Images, Scott Olson/Getty Images, Darren McCollester/Getty Images

The fabric has broken down, they say, just as predicted. And what rural Americans see on the news today is a sneak peek at their tomorrow.

The savages are coming.

Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, "But those white Christians are the real problem!" Terror victims scream in the street next to their own severed limbs, and the response from the elites is to cry about how men should be allowed to use women's restrooms and how it's cruel to keep chickens in cages.

Madness. Their heads are so far up their asses that they can't tell up from down. Basic, obvious truths that have gone unquestioned for thousands of years now get laughed at and shouted down -- the fact that hard work is better than dependence on government, that children do better with both parents in the picture, that peace is better than rioting, that a strict moral code is better than blithe hedonism, that humans tend to value things they've earned more than what they get for free, that not getting exploded by a bomb is better than getting exploded by a bomb.

Or as they say out in the country, "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

The foundation upon which America was undeniably built -- family, faith, and hard work -- had been deemed unfashionable and small-minded. Those snooty elites up in their ivory tower laughed as they kicked away that foundation, and then wrote 10,000-word thinkpieces blaming the builders for the ensuing collapse.

Related: 6 Cities That Are Supervillain Utopias
3
The Rural Areas Have Been Beaten To Shit

Mario Tama/Getty Images
Don't message me saying all those things I listed are wrong. I know they're wrong. Or rather, I think they're wrong, because I now live in a blue county and work for a blue industry. I know the Good Old Days of the past were built on slavery and segregation, I know that entire categories of humanity experienced religion only as a boot on their neck. I know that those "traditional families" involved millions of women trapped in kitchens and bad marriages. I know gays lived in fear and abortions were back-alley affairs.

I know the changes were for the best.

Try telling that to anybody who lives in Trump country.

They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed.


Economic Innovation Group

See, rural jobs used to be based around one big local business -- a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town dies. Where I grew up, it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been. The roof of our high school leaked when it rained. Cities can make up for the loss of manufacturing jobs with service jobs -- small towns cannot. That model doesn't work below a certain population density.

If you don't live in one of these small towns, you can't understand the hopelessness. The vast majority of possible careers involve moving to the city, and around every city is now a hundred-foot wall called "Cost of Living." Let's say you're a smart kid making $8 an hour at Walgreen's and aspire to greater things. Fine, get ready to move yourself and your new baby into a 700-square-foot apartment for $1,200 a month, and to then pay double what you're paying now for utilities, groceries, and babysitters. Unless, of course, you're planning to move to one of "those" neighborhoods (hope you like being set on fire!).


Tim Boyle/Getty Images

That is, if they don't replace the only room you can afford with a $3,300-per-month high-rise.

In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town -- aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.

I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive.

And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities.

Related: 7 Normal Towns That Have Been Attacked By Pure Craziness
2
Everyone Lashes Out When They Don't Have A Voice

Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images
It really does feel like the worst of both worlds: all the ravages of poverty, but none of the sympathy. "Blacks burn police cars, and those liberal elites say it's not their fault because they're poor. My son gets jailed and fired over a baggie of meth, and those same elites make jokes about his missing teeth!" You're everyone's punching bag, one of society's last remaining safe comedy targets.

They take it hard. These are people who come from a long line of folks who took pride in looking after themselves. Where I'm from, you weren't a real man unless you could repair a car, patch a roof, hunt your own meat, and defend your home from an intruder. It was a source of shame to be dependent on anyone -- especially the government. You mowed your own lawn and fixed your own pipes when they leaked, you hauled your own firewood in your own pickup truck. (Mine was a 1994 Ford Ranger! The current owner says it still runs!)

Not like those hipsters in their tiny apartments, or "those people" in their public housing projects, waiting for the landlord any time something breaks, knowing if things get too bad they can just pick up and move. When you don't own anything, it's all somebody else's problem. "They probably don't pay taxes, either! Just treating America itself as a subsidized apartment they can trash!"

The rural folk with the Trump signs in their yards say their way of life is dying, and you smirk and say what they really mean is that blacks and gays are finally getting equal rights and they hate it. But I'm telling you, they say their way of life is dying because their way of life is dying. It's not their imagination. No movie about the future portrays it as being full of traditional families, hunters, and coal mines. Well, except for Hunger Games, and that was depicted as an apocalypse.


Lionsgate Films

So yes, they vote for the guy promising to put things back the way they were, the guy who'd be a wake-up call to the blue islands. They voted for the brick through the window.

It was a vote of desperation.

Related: Voice NFTs Are Now A Thing, And It Sucks
1
Assholes Are Heroes

Spencer Platt/Getty Images
"But Trump is objectively a piece of shit!" you say. "He insults people, he objectifies women, and cheats whenever possible! And he's not an everyman; he's a smarmy, arrogant billionaire!"

Wait, are you talking about Donald Trump, or this guy:


Marvel Studios

You've never rooted for somebody like that? Someone powerful who gives your enemies the insults they deserve? Somebody with big fun appetites who screws up just enough to make them relatable? Like Dr. House or Walter White? Or any of the several million renegade cop characters who can break all the rules because they get shit done? Who only get shit done because they don't care about the rules?

"But those are fictional characters!" Okay, what about all those millionaire left-leaning talk show hosts? You think they keep their insults classy? Tune into any bit about Chris Christie and start counting down the seconds until the fat joke. Google David Letterman's sex scandals. But it's okay, because they're on our side, and everybody wants an asshole on their team -- a spiked bat to smash their enemies with. That's all Trump is. The howls of elite outrage are like the sounds of bombs landing on the enemy's fortress. The louder the better.


Kevin Winter/Getty Images
Already some of you have gotten angry, feeling this gut-level revulsion at any attempt to excuse or even understand these people. After all, they're hardly people, right? Aren't they just a mass of ignorant, rageful, crude, cursing, spitting subhumans?

Gee, I hope not. I have to hug a bunch of them at Thanksgiving. And when I do, it will be with the knowledge that if I hadn't moved away, I'd be on the other side of the fence, leaving nasty comments on this article the alternate universe version of me wrote.

It feels good to dismiss people, to mock them, to write them off as deplorables. But you might as well take time to try to understand them, because I'm telling you, they'll still be around long after Trump is gone.
 
Last edited:
In nearly 6 years of Trump - Trump the Canidate, Trump the President, Trump the ex-President - I have yet to find a better explaination of at least half the problem than this:
Since that "explanation" is nothing but a list of tired clichés and lazy pop cultural references, the fact that you haven't been able to find a better one in all those years may be an indication that, maybe, your point isn't as good as you think.

Forget Cracked articles, can you explain in your own words what were the legitimate concerns of the Republican base when it embraced Trump?
 
Bout the only one I can name is NATFA membership but there were much better candidates for that, as we're all aware
Since the US is a net exporter of agricultural products, NAFTA has been a benefit to American farmers, so even in this specific case I don't see what the issue is.
 
Since the US is a net exporter of agricultural products, NAFTA has been a benefit to American farmers, so even in this specific case I don't see what the issue is.
This is missing the point, I think.

NAFTA may have benefited the US as a whole; it hasn't benefited the town whose assembly plant closed because the employer moved it to Mexico and hasn't got a replacement employer. The benefit is spread across all US residents who get cheaper stuff (and across Mexico and Canada too). The costs are concentrated in specific localities, and I don't know how much federal and state governments have done to balance that out, but especially in red states I'd guess "not much".
 
This is missing the point, I think.

NAFTA may have benefited the US as a whole; it hasn't benefited the town whose assembly plant closed because the employer moved it to Mexico and hasn't got a replacement employer. The benefit is spread across all US residents who get cheaper stuff (and across Mexico and Canada too). The costs are concentrated in specific localities, and I don't know how much federal and state governments have done to balance that out, but especially in red states I'd guess "not much".

Pretty much what I was going to say.

I don’t have time (or the inclination) to write a full essay but …

I have this Grand Unified Theory of modern-day political upheavals, explaining Trump, BREXIT and the rest, and that’s that the benefits and costs of [whatever] have not been spread evenly. Certain parties reaped the benefits, other parties endured the downsides and outright disadvantages. When they complained, as they had every right to do, they got shellacked by people who only saw the advantages and never the disadvantages. They got mad.
 
I have this Grand Unified Theory of modern-day political upheavals, explaining Trump, BREXIT and the rest, and that’s that the benefits and costs of [whatever] have not been spread evenly. Certain parties reaped the benefits, other parties endured the downsides and outright disadvantages. When they complained, as they had every right to do, they got shellacked by people who only saw the advantages and never the disadvantages. They got mad.
Ah, so what they wanted was a government that picks the winners and the losers, regulates the free market, and engages in wealth redistribution. Funny because that's the opposite of what they claimed they wanted.
 
Two things...

(1) There's the "Screw It" theory of Trump conquering the GOP. The gist is that a lot of Republicans basically tried to vote for the polite, genteel, and tempermentally-but-not-subsantively-moderate Conservative nominee, but he got painted as an arch-racist/arch-sexist anyway. The gist of the idea is that if you aren't going to get any points for putting up a well behaved nominee, why not vote for the SOB who puts your interests first? I have no idea how valid this theory is, and if it is valid I have no idea how many primary voters were swayed by it, but if there's any validity to it, Trump 2012 wouldn't go as well because Romney wouldn't have lost yet.

(2) Trump's 2016 primary win was a bit of a fluke. It was the product of a divided field and the GOP trying to rig the primary after 2012 for a Romney-like candidate to win. That's why they reshuffled the primary schedule to put moderate states (northeast, etc) and expensive states (Florida, etc.) earlier so a Romney-esque establishment-favored candidate (coming off well to suburbanites, and also having the big $$$ to win in the expensive states) would be a clear frontrunner. They also made more states winner-take-all. This backfired, because Trump turned out to be especially popular in those states and was able to ride the winner-take-all process and heavily divided field into the nomination.


Ah, so what they wanted was a government that picks the winners and the losers, regulates the free market, and engages in wealth redistribution. Funny because that's the opposite of what they claimed they wanted.

Which people wanted what? The US is two big tent parties comprised of different people along for the ride for different reasons, and the composition of the parties has changed over time. A lot of the difference between Buchanan 1992 (23%) and Trump 2016 (44.9%) could be explained by the people who joined the Republican Party and left the Republican Party in the 24 years in between. Many college educated suburbanites who generally liked the three-legged-stool attitude became Democrats under Dubya and Obama on cultural-social grounds. A lot of economically-populist-culturally-conservative voters became Republicans. The whole 'missing white voter' theory of 2008 and 2012 proved correct in 2016, because a bunch of voters who voted for Dubya in 2000 and 2004 on populist grounds showed up again for Trump in 2016. Trump's state-by-state margins in 2016 and 2020 weren't that dissimilar from Dubya's ... the 5 states Dubya lost by the closest margins were MI, WI, MN, NH, and PA; three of which went for Trump in 2016 and two arguably went to Clinton because of Johnson and McMullin.

TLDR - lots of Republicans historically did want the laissez faire economic stuff and many still do want the laissez faire economic stuff, but lots of other Republicans don't and the it's the people who don't who became ascendant in the Republican party. In 2012, Romney sort of knew this considering he threw Paul Ryan under the bus, denounced the ACA for cutting medicare spending, and was Mr 'Self-Deport.'

I'd also caution projecting the brain-rot of many Republicans in 2020 back to 2016 or 2012. In 2016, churchgoing and fiscally conservative Republicans generally were pretty Trump-averse (which is why Trump got pressured into picking Pence as VP). Trump did best with self-described moderates and self-described Christians who didn't go to church. It was a gradual process over four years of partisan warfare induced solidarity coupled with breaking down dissenters that those folks started to completely fall behind Trump.

=================

If Trump was the nominee in 2012, I think a few things happen.

(a) The 'missing white voters' show up. These people mostly lived in Appalachia and the Rust Belt. Trump got about 2.1m more votes than Romney, despite shedding many votes to Obama and Johnson and McMullin.
(b) Many OTL Obama 2008 => Romney 2012 vote for Obama again. Obama got 3,582,721 fewer votes in 2012 than 2008.
(c) Gary Johnson gets more votes. Johnson got about 1.7m more votes in 2016 than in 2012. McMullin also got 731,991 votes (and I tend to clump him and Johnson together in thinking about 'disaffected Republican voters' even though Johnson likely got some otherwise-democratic voters too)
(d) Republicans focus a lot more of their money and efforts on down-ballot races.

The prospect of a McMullin-Independent popping up are also harder in 2012, because the GOP Convention isn't until the end of August that year. In 2016 it was in July.

The primary probably becomes Romney, Trump, and maybe Ron Paul running. But a lot of the Paul vote was paleoconservatives who'd be into Trump. He'd still be hovering around trying to run to make a point though.

If you balance out Trump's white voter turnout boost (especially in appalachia/rust belt) with the black and young voters Obama got OTL but Clinton didn't ... plus Johnson plucking similar voters to 2016 (westerners, suburbanites, upper New England, Upper Midwest)... Obama gains NC, AZ, GA, and NE-2. Missouri and Indiana probably still go Republican.

My guess...

Obama 68,798,516 51.7% (375)
Trump 58,410,783 43.9% (163)
Johnson 4,960,000 3.7% (0)


Senate races in AZ and NV could break for Democrats because of Trump's bad coattails, but it's equally likely that people vote Republican because they expect Obama to win. One could argue that part of why the GOP didn't do worse in the House in 2016 in suburban districts was because a lot of voters figured Clinton would win (which is why many of those same voters swung hard for Democrats in 2018). GOP will do better in the Ohio, and Pennsylvania Senate races, where turnout boosts (Appalachia) would be strongest. Maybe Wisconsin too. Whether or not this actually changes the outcomes is a different question. OTL in WI and PA in 2016, the GOP Senate candidates ran ahead of Trump by 2 or 3 points, and in OH it was by 7 or 8 points. Changes in turnout in Indiana might get Mourdock elected there, assuming almost all of the additional voters go for him and/or some Donnelly voters go for Mourdock to be a check on Obama - but neither are sure things.


Obama winning, Democrats losing the Senate, and a third party candidate doing beyond Nader levels would signify a pretty deep ambivalence on the part of the public. Obama might be less ambitious in his second term.
 
Last edited:
My guess...

Obama 68,798,516 51.7%
Trump 58,410,783 43.9%
Johnson 4,960,000 3.7%
You make a guess down to the last individual vote, but that is neither here nor there if we don't know where the ballots ins question would be cast. We have seen twice in our lifetimes a candidate to the US presidency win the race with fewer votes than their opponent.

And in 2012 the brain rot was very much there. Birtherism was in full swing, the right wing echo chamber was waxing apocalyptic (just look up the old threads at places like FreeRepublic from that time), and conservative pundits predicted an imminent descent into dictatorial socialism. I remember that Orson Scott Card claimed that Obama would set up a national law enforcement agency (to be called NaPo) staffed with ghetto thugs whose job would be to round up his political opponents. And then he's get around the 22nd Amendment by having Michelle run as a proxy.
 
Back
Top