Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Generic Republican vs. Hillary: What If?
Much talk before the election was given to how much better another candidate (insert generic Republican here) would have been doing against Hillary Clinton. Such a debate is of course unnecessary now since Donald Trump has won (bigly even). But, the question still has cropped up if someone else would have done better than Trump has done. Such a question of course is impossible to really answer in any kind of objective way. Too many counterfactuals and possibilities exist to be able to account for them. Yet, one possible option to test this hypothesis, has occurred to me, and I decided to put it to the test.
The Hypothesis: Mitt Romney is the quintessential generic Republican candidate. If he ran again in 2016 vs. Clinton and received all the same votes he did in 2012 would this allow him to beat Clinton if she received all the votes she got in 2016?
The experimental design is very simple. I went on a state-by-state basis comparing in each state the vote totals between Romney in 2012 and Clinton in 2016. Who ever had the most votes won the state (I didn’t factor in the Nebraska and Maine splitting because I was just too lazy to be that detailed). There are numerous problems with this kind of straight-up comparison, the biggest being that it assumes that Romney could not in 2016 get more votes than he got in 2012, that there is no overlap in voters between the two candidates, and that no new voters would turn out to vote for either.
In 2012 Romney got 60,933,504 million votes and in 2016 Clinton got a total of 59,938,290 (at least so far; there are still votes being counted even now). This means that generic Republican Romney wins the popular vote which is better than what Trump has done (Trump is currently trailing Clinton by about 230,000 votes. But, the popular vote means squat. How does this translate into electoral college votes?
Romney would have won the following states against Hillary: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY. This would have resulted in 255 electoral votes and a loss. So while generic Romney would have done well in a popular vote battle, he would have failed to win the actual election, because he would have failed to get Florida. The Sunshine State is one of the few in which Clinton outperformed Obama as compared to 2012. Trump outperformed Romney in battleground states like MI, OH, PA and FL. In fact, Trump got 400,000 more votes in Florida than Romney. This is what gave him the victory.
So while there are numerous caveats to this analysis, I would conclude that no generic Republican could have done much better on an electoral vote level than Trump did. This is because the generic Republican would have had to win the same states as Trump, which he did through a massive turnout of blue-collar whites. What the generic Republican of this test offered over Trump is just a more narrow loss in deep blue states with one oddball pick up of Washington state. Perhaps the generic Republican could have achieved the same electoral vote results as Trump but with a different set of voters. There is no way to test this though.
Published in General
There were NeverTrumpers that opposed him on the grounds that he could not win. While I thought him unlikely to win even on the eve of the election I always thought he had a chance to win. I feared what he would do if he won, not his ability to do it. It is an interesting trend you point out. But would it have changed the electoral college result?
Almost all political discussion cannot be proven or disproven as you would have it. but the electoral college makes it a much simpler inquiry.
How does Romney get to 271 against Clinton? Does he have any strategy to take CA or NY or NJ or OR or WA or DC or DE or RI or VT or IL? No. Things just got a lot simpler…
I agree with this. But I’m with Valiuth on “bigly.”
Also, any scenario that has the GOP candidate winning WA is automatically discredited.
Actually political discussions can be resolved with some degree of certainty when we’re comparing apples and apples. It’s possible, for example, to make very educated “guesses” on why Romney lost to Obama in ’12 because, unlike here, we’re working with numbers that bear relation to one another in the same universe–a single election.
Not for me, but perhaps we’re unfortunately talking past each other. The wild card is Clinton being a terrible candidate on several levels (and, correspondingly, Obama was a good candidate). We can’t say with any level of certainty at all, that Romney, with Clinton as his opponent, would have lost Florida . . . or Ohio . . . or Colorado . . . or Nevada . . . or . . .
Going crazy negative on her was the right move. Depressing turnout really helped.
I agree on this, with one niggle:
Obama positively demonized Romney here in the rust belt in 2012. Then Obama, not needing them any more, stabbed them in the back with EPA regs, the ravages of Obamacare, and the culture wars. That primed the area for flipping and made any Republican’s job here easier (though not guaranteed). A lot changed here in 4 years.
Are those quotes? I’m confused because I didn’t write any of those. Is Ricochet acting up?
Would Santorum have worked as well as Trump?
I wager not.
As far as I can divine (which is, of course, not very far), the vote was (partially? largely?) an indictment of moralistic scolding, not simply an indictment of Left-wing moralistic scolding.
You beat me to it. He would not have played well here at all.
Although he wasn’t my first choice [Cruz was]…I think Kasich would have absolutely crushed Clinton…..the entire focus would have been on her e-mail and foundation issues and Kasich while not exciting doesnt offend anyone….I think it would have been the first true landslide since Reagan in 1984…probably something along the lines of Bush in 1988
My sincere apologies. I had trouble with the post and those should been attributed to someone else. I’ve fixed it, and thanks for catching.
There’s “making an argument” and there’s “convincing the voters”. We may wish they were equivalent, but they’re not.
Lots of rational conservatives became conservative through rational analysis. That’s great, but most people don’t do that. They fumble into their beliefs, stupid stuff like repeating something lots of times makes them think something’s true.
Come election time, Democrats and Trump understand this. We conservatives make logical cases that should work but don’t. So we lose too many elections.
Indeed, I believe rational thought necessary to create a believing conservative who won’t forget his beliefs the second he sees a clever commercial. We need to have the best dialectical arguments possible to support our ideology. If we’re able to get people feeling better about us, we’ll get the chance to present them. In the meantime, when there’s an election on, deal with people as they are and just win the damn thing (yes, within ethical bounds).
What bugged me about Romney was he had fight, it just came out sporadically and rarely when it mattered. He had tons of fight at CPAC in 2008 right after he dropped out of the primary. He had flashes of it in the 2012 primary debates. When he spoke out against Trump, he was on fire.
But against Obama? Just a little bit during the first debate.
He had glimpses showing he might have what it took, but for whatever reason he refused to do it when it counted. Romney at his best probably would have beaten Obama, but he saved his best for when it didn’t count.
So maybe he didn’t have what it takes.
Well said. Can you do us a favor and forward this to Mona?
Like McCain, he was overly cautious about potentially offending Obama’s base — you know, the people who were never going to vote for a Republican anyway.
This was the Trump Train for a reason. Once he started rolling he couldn’t stop. I hope this election taught us one thing. It’s a total waste of time to predict anything.
I don’t think she likes me very much (if she knows I exist), so although I’d be more than thrilled for Mona to read it, it’s probably not a good idea for me to send it to her.
But I’m curious, what makes you think Mona would particularly benefit?
I meant that tongue-in-cheek — I see Mona as the consummate NeverTrumper — but now I suppose I owe you an answer. Doh!
I’ve always admired her clear writing and tight argumentation of conservative positions, steeped in profound understanding of conservative principles. But listening to an occasional podcast (I used to listen regularly) it has occurred to me that she would rather polish the trophy than acknowledge that principles alone won’t get the job done. Donald Trump’s election puts Conservatives in the best position in decades to pass conservative legislation (no need to recite the list here) — despite the many flaws of DTJ the man. Trump is her White Whale and she has made a slave of herself in pursuit of his downfall. She simply can’t see past the man’s flaws to recognize this rare opportunity to put conservatives positions into action. I was hoping that she would return to form as a positive force post-election, but I guess it’s going to take time.
If Romney could learn to leave his second guessing and insecurity to the meetings with his advisors and campaign managers, learning what he needs to know, and then holding firm to those things in the public eye without apology and not backing down, then Romney could have stood a chance.
He probably could do better than Trump with his pristine background if he COULD be as combative and tough as Trump – Don’t apologize, don’t back down, don’t be afraid to use their tactics against them.
There is a problem with that strategy. One, for those who would have the resources to move, would they? If you are in the Rob Long income bracket of California, why would you want to move to Hicksville Racistburg, Red State America? I recall a few months ago Rush Limbaugh highlighting a story he came across about some elitist DC schlub moving to West Virginia and all of his friends wondering why, as though he had renounced his citizenship of the US and moved to Somalia. I have a good friend of mine from Missouri who is a big time Lib and he calls where he is from Taliban occupied. The Left is not going to be moving to the Red States that they need to flip. Florida might be an exception.
Second, if we are talking about people without the means to pick up and move, then how will Left move them? Forced migration? They talk a big deal of talk but when push comes to shove the Left is going to do what they always do to counter election results: obstruct, use the media to propagandize about how any Republican who breaths hurts the poor, women, and children, and force the DC GOP leadership to cower in fear. This is how they do it.
They’ll move if there are jobs or some cultural attractions. The former is what’s happening in Texas, the latter is what happened to Colorado.
Both are happening in my dear old Columbus, Ohio (once a sleepy cow-town (self described nickname), now periodically hosting http://www.sexapalooza.ca/shows). Columbus moved to a California-style primary system such that the city itself had zero Republican candidates for the mayoral and city council elections recently.
I don’t believe Romney is a Generic Republican but consider either any Bush or McCain to fit that role more accurately. I have a long standing animus toward Mitt Romney as a political creature formed in the William Weld mold of a Third Way Republican. i.e. Fiscally less lavish than the Left but aligned with them on every other issue. Trust me I was tangentially involved in his Senate run in 1996 where it was obvious in private discussion that he loathed Conservatives but especially Reagan as usurpers.
The Romney Clan (Ma, Pa and Mitt) opposed Conservatives their entire political lives which is generic Democrat in my lights.
Obama had the magic sauce of racial identity that won in both 2008 and 2012. Trump would not have won even the primary.
Of course, I agree there’s no way to test if Romney, or a generic Republican, or even any other Republican, would have won the race. But if Trump was the only candidate, that is actually kind of concerning. And I don’t mean to take away from Trump’s accomplishment, or how wrong I was about whether he could win. I was way wrong, and he deserves a lot of credit for the way he read the political climate and the desires of a lot of Americans, especially white working-class voters. But look, was Clinton a great candidate? I think she was pretty terrible, one of the worst in history. Wouldn’t we agree? But now look how close the election was – the popular vote was within one point if I’m not mistaken, and in fact Clinton won the popular vote. The electoral college, while a decisive win for Trump, was closer than either of Obama’s two victories…. (to be continued)
(continued) Are we saying that no Republican candidate could have drubbed perhaps the worst Democratic candidate in history, or one of the worst, the way that Obama destroyed McCain in 2008? Or even that none of them could have won with even just a 5% margin in the popular vote? Once you get to that margin in the popular vote, the map doesn’t matter – you’ll definitely flip enough states to win a majority. Romney would have lost with a two percentage lead over Obama, but with five, he’d have won. Are we saying no Republican can win the popular vote?
Again, no disrespect meant to Trump, but Republicans have won the popular vote only once since 1988. This may be a bit of a concern to keep in mind for the future.
Great analysis, thank you!
Romney would have lost in 2016 for the same reason he lost in 2012 – no cojones.
With Stuart Stevens advising him stupidly to chase the Hispanic vote and with his own tin ear for the concerns of working class white voters, whom he either lost to or underperformed against Obama in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the Florida panhandle, Mitt would have lost another winnable election.
He also would never have confronted Hillary the way Trump did. (“You may think that’s right, but I don’t,” said Trump about PBA, and “You’d be in jail.”) Face it: Mitt would have quelled any chants of “Lock her up!” at his rallies just like McCain quelled any talk about Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright. And talk about The Wall? Fugettaboutit!
He would have given a lovely concession speech again, however.
If you want to understand the 2016 election that nobody predicted, I advise everyone on Ricochet to go to anncoulter.com, click on her “archives” tab at the top of the home page and download her column from March 30, 2016. It’s called “It’s Only Trump.”
Unlike all of these postmortems and counterfactuals it merely has the benefit of being 100% accurate seven months in advance.
Here, I’ll make it easy for you.
Of course not. Rick would have made the campaign entirely against ISIS and about World War III, exactly as he did here in 2006 against an empty suite named Bob Casey, Jr. And the fathers and mothers of the soldiers in the Rust Belt would have turned away, just like they did in Pennsylvania in 2006, when as an incumbent he lost by 16%.
Why would he have done that to his own people, rather than fight for them in 2016?
Because he’s not a rich man and his donors would have insisted.
Remember that important Trump slogan: “Can’t Be Bought.”
Another thing: On Election night Dana Perino made the point twice early in the evening that Hispanics had registered in much higher numbers in Florida in 2016.
Hispanics.
For the past year the dire economic conditions in Puerto Rico have caused an exodus of residents from the island commonwealth to the mainland, especially to Florida.
Of what importance is continued immigration, especially of low-skilled, low-wage workers from Central America, to economically struggling Puerto Ricans, who are American citizens?