Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for doing this, OP. It has been an absolute blast!
And for my nomination I say **anyone except Jack Fellure**, the (I shit you not) Prohibition Party nominee in 2012.
Drinking a beer for you tonight, Jack.
I’m dying at this
> “In 1992, Fellure filed to run in the New Hampshire, West Virginia and Kansas Republican primaries. By November 1991, he had spent $40,000 of his own money on the campaign, and he sent a King James Bible to the Federal Election Commission as a copy of his platform.”
I remember when Romney said russia was then a current and growing threat to peace and democracy, and Obama laughed. I laughed. Everybody laughed.
Ironically, Mitt might have been the president that told Putin to stuff it and ended russian meddling.
Sorry about that, Mitt.
A literal binder of resumes belonging to women to try to get more women into state government in Massachussetts. Such a scandal. A few years later the Boston Globe was actually able to obtain the binder. [Link](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/10/romney-binders-still-full-women-are-unearthed/NTdYraj1yQ53uVklgnHZtL/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=)
What exactly would mitt do though that obama didnt? And it's not like Obama was 'soft' on putin or something, yes he (and the rest of the u.s.) underestimated how antagonistic putin was against the west, but he did try oppose the russians and check their power with stuff like syria.
Look, I voted for Obama twice and don't regret it, but the Mueller Report made it pretty clear that his administration's response to russian meddling in US elections was pretty lax. If we acknowledge putin interfered on flump's behalf in 2016, we have to also acknowledge that it occurred during Obama's presidency.
Obama's foreign policy also widely considered russia as a non-threat. Hillary Clinton had putin push the famous "reset" button, and they did nothing in response to the annexation of Crimea.
I can't say for certain what Romney would have done, but he's been vocal about russia from the start, and fought well as a senator against russian aggression.
So again, what should have been done? People seem to forget how politicized everything had become. Any attempt to do anything about Russia would have immediately been attacked as partisan. Ironically it would have been labeled a form of election interference.
>So again, what should have been done?
You see those things I said up there that Obama didn't do? That's pretty much a list of what should have happened.
>Any attempt to do anything about Russia would have immediately been attacked as partisan.
This is silly.
Nobody really thought russia was a concern on either side of the aisle back then, and only became correlated with American conservatism in the wake of the 2016 election.
And I already mentioned a time that exact thing happened, and there was nothing "partisan" about it.
>Ironically it would have been labeled a form of election interference.
Alright, just quit, my dude.
I have no idea how people constantly perceive 2016 so starkly different. The thing that bothers me the most is how so many people look back on all this as it was all so obvious. It's precisely that kind of convenient hindsight that dooms us to repeat our mistakes.
The problem is people like you, who think that whatever *sounds right* according to your very limited body of knowledge on a topic is some kind of revelation.
He was half right. They turned out to be a threat. But not a very sophisticated one. That may have accounted for the laughter from well-briefed sitting president.
He didn’t say it was a growing threat. He said it was the number one geostrategic threat to the U.S. (Obama, with several attempted terrorist attacks in recent memory, said it was Al Qaeda.) You can argue he was right or wrong. But get his words right. He didn’t laugh at the idea of it just being a growing threat.
This is tough, I’m going to be on the side of Obama, but I really would have liked to have seen what Romney could have accomplished with those binders full of women.
I think Cruz was a bigger threat than Jeb. He was the frontrunner for a short time. Now he's relegated to being Rule 3's lapdog and that guy who read Dr. Seuss once.
Jeb was destined to be like Scott Walker or Ron Desantis. An early favorite due to name recognition and donor money that just doesn't have what it takes. In an alternate universe without Rule 3, I bet Romney still doesn't run but he or Ted would be the top 2. Maybe Marco too.
Right wing parties across the west were being radicalised over the 2010s, whether they were in office or not. Romney winning would probably decrease or delay it, but not fully prevent it.
The way the media treated Romney in the 2016 and his milquetoast response to it is largely why the establishment wing of the party had an easier time letting the far right edge of the party take control
It's not that complex.
Democrats also like figures who are willing to play tough with the establishment in order to get what they want (FDR, LBJ) and view those who are perceived to be rolling over for the opposition (Mondale, Clinton) negatively.
Throughout the entire 21st century, Republicans have been settling for people like Bush Jr., McCain and Romney who were all willing to let the media and the opposition shape their own image while they quietly try to work their agenda behind the scenes and try to take the high road in public as much as possible.
After so many cycles the electorate was practically craving for a prick with a 'get shit done' sort of attitude and a loud mouth that is eager to retaliate and launch it's own attacks any time.
It's a natural cycle that democrats will inevitably go through as well in the future, after a single GOP term I've already seen plenty of discontent democrats who are starting to be unhappy with their candidates always only taking the punches and taking the high road instead of getting down and dirty, this discontentness has already affected the current Presidency, with the current administration's communication being much more direct and confrontative than it was pre-2022.
Sure, but I think it paved the way for people to coalesce around a figure that would be openly combative and hostile to the media in a way that was incredibly norm breaking.
Yeah. Even if Romney had won in 2012 Republican constituencies and other elected officials would have continued to radicalize. Romney himself seems like he would have shut down the worst impulses of the party during his time in office, but the movement that propelled Rule 3 to power in many ways still would’ve happened eventually.
I don't buy this counterfactual. The crazy element was already evident, though perhaps not ascendant. People believed Obama was a Muslim, and ineligible for office. They had floats of him lynched in small town parades. All before 2012.
Romney had a plan of self deportation for immigrants, McCain had ads saying "build the wall" long before rule 3. It took after the 2012 loss for the party to reconsider its immigration stance, only to double down.
And those elements only got worse when the Refugee Crises happened along with the war in Syria and Iraq. I don't think a Romney 2012 victory negates any of those.
He'd likely end his turn hated by dems for repealing Obamacare, and either buckling to the conservative fringe or being labeled a RINO.
>McCain had ads saying "build the wall" long before rule 3
"Build the wall" didn't really have become a racist trope until rule 3 started using it so I'm not sure that's really a fair statement. Democrats "built walls" too. Carter, Clinton, and Obama all made progress on building a a border wall.
Bill Clinton used to call undocumented immigrants illegal aliens now no democrat can it’s not xenophobic to want to know who cross your border but rule 3 took it to another level
There are plenty of libertarians that are anti-establishment, but aren’t radicals. There are plenty of “establishment” folks who are radical. The radicals are around either way
Absolutely not. He still would’ve appointed justices that would’ve overturned Roe. He still would’ve passed a version of the you know who tax cuts. He was in favor of massive cuts to social security and Medicare. He was to the right of Rick Perry on immigration.
Mitt Romney would’ve been a terrible president for this country.
I forgot about Roe, so that probably would've been bad. I understand the rest of the stuff, but right of Rick Perry on immigration??? Can you elaborate, cause I've never heard about that.
Romney positioned himself as a hawk on immigration to outflank his primary opponents, mainly McCain and Huckabee starting in 2008. This trend continued against Perry in 2012 when the Romney campaign relentlessly went after a program he had in Texas that allowed undocumented immigrants to qualify for college tuition. Romney did not favor a pathway to citizenship as Bush and Reagan had. He was the most conservative nominee in the modern history of the GOP on immigration. There’s much more if you dig including “self deportation”.
Edit: Romney also for a physical barrier on the border which Perry was against(preferring a “smart” border with limited strategic fencing, drones, etc in place of a full physical barrier)
You have to go back a couple decades but Rick Perry came up through a Texas GOP that was actually softer on illegal immigration than today. Romney attacked him for this, most notably a program Perry supported that allowed any student attending HS in Texas to have in-state tuition (including undocumented students).
Paul Ryan? The “there are takers and makers” architect of massive cuts to social security and Medicare which he called “entitlements” Paul Ryan? With an FDR flare???
Well, they *are* entitlements. Legally speaking, you are entitled to social security, and that's what they're called in the federal budget. The word itself has become a bit loaded in the last 10 years, but it's not new terminology when it comes to SS and Medicare.
I don't agree with the above poster, but I do sympathize. I strongly disagree with Paul Ryan at a policy level, but at the very least he seems to support democracy.
I don't think it's necessary or effective to boost Romney or Ryan in order to stave off Rule 3. Flipping the result of '16 does that.
I still remember election night 2012. I spent it in this little restaurant/bar just across from Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles in Minneapolis, drinking the fine beers that were just about the only thing I liked about that town. It was chilly but not cold. There was a new, red-headed waitress there. She & I celebrated Obama's victory together. Eventually I learned her name, and by February we were dating. Only election that ever got me a girlfriend.
Romney. Obama’s foreign policy was ass and his second term a bust. Romney being a two term president keeps the GOP more moderate and he’d govern pragmatically and handle foreign policy and Covid better than Obama and rule 3.
Obama winning in 2012 literally gave us Rule 3 in 2016, not to mention that in the grand scheme of things I think Romney may have been a better choice for the US for 2012 in the long run compared to Obama. Romney foresaw a lot of things that have happened since that election, and no one listened to him.
Exactly I feel like because he is overshadowed by an insanely charismatic president and a famous one at that people forgot the things he was right about, he was right about Russia and imo would’ve been tougher on foreign policy than Obama was.
Also we don’t have the radical left and right today without Obama winning in 2012, the right went nuts and then the left did after rule 3. With Romney we have a nice and moderate political system still imo.
There is no “radical left” in the US, to argue so is disingenuous. Dems would be center-right in other developed democracies. You have a group of legitimate fascists post-2016/2020 that pull everyone else right.
I agree Romney would have helped, but probably just delayed the inevitable turn to right-wing extremism for a very loud minority of people waiting for a leader.
what are the Palestine protests then? People shouting intifada revolution at the top of their lungs because some Tik-Toker told them too? Prominent leftists like Noam Chomsky just don't exist? You are being disingenuous if you actual believe "there is no radical left" in the USA.
Those are protests that align politically for left-leaning people, protest against a theocratic & genocidal regime is not radical
I mean that true leftists lack a platform in US politics to enact significant change. Dems do not represent true left politics supported worldwide, it is a massive range of mostly (US) center-left with some progressives/Dem-Socialists/Leftists scattered in it
Romney without a question. I worked for him then and we can definitely say with hindsight he was better prepared for the 2012 and later foreign policy issues than Obama.
Romney. If he wins, the republican party stays normal. Romney's loss was the last straw in the radicalization of the republican party. It made the radical candidates more appealing to the republican electorate because "the other guys couldn't get it done." If Romney wins, the Republicans do not overcorrect gong forward.
Romney was out centre casting for nice guy and got his butt kicked. So the GOP took the lessons don’t waste your time trying to play nice with the media or Dems.
This was my first election. Freshman in college who turned 18 a week before Election Day. I proudly went and voted for Romney and was a proud Republican. Called people for his campaign because I truly thought he would’ve been a great president. Nowadays I’m a lot more liberal and believe would vote for Obama, but still would’ve respected Mitt as the opposing candidate
Obama. Just because the likes of McCain and Romney were against what came after them and that faction which has since taken over the Republican Party doesn’t mean their views and positions were not utterly abhorrent themselves. I don’t even think too highly of Obama’s presidency, but he had the benefit of going up against terrible opponents so being better than them is really a low bar. For me at least, Romney (and McCain)’s just too far right for me to even remotely consider - though I have some time for Mitt’s old man
I don't get this Obamacare made my insurance go up from $175 mo to over $700 mo and I was only making $500 take home a week. Glad it helped you but don't forget all the people it screwed over too.
He’s retiring after his current term as senator comes to a close.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/us/politics/mitt-romney-retirement.html#:~:text=Senator%20Mitt%20Romney%20of%20Utah,“new%20generation%20of%20leaders.”
The second presidential election I ever voted in, and I was happy to cast my vote for Obama. The past four years had its challenges: the ACA rollout wasn’t great and the GOP congress has put up every conceivable road block with the Tea Party. However, the country is moving in the right direction, the ACA will help me and millions of others get healthcare, and the man got Osama!
Romney on the other hand was an out of touch rich guy who wanted my home town to go Bankrupt, and should I also mention he had “Binders full of women.”
Definitely Obama. I get the Romney’s like not a fascist and more or less a nice guy, which is definitely good, but let’s just be honest and admit his ideas weren’t even half baked and he would have made a mediocre President.
I voted for Obama as I did in 2008 and if I could I would’ve voted for him in 2016 as well. Romney was a corporate Republican who had no interest in the average American. Obama is an intelligent man of principle .
Never thought of it this way, but I wonder if part of that was because they recognized Obama would appeal to independents, and so they figured they needed to nominate someone to appeal to independents as well.
Obama. First president to back gay marriage in office vs the guy who committed an antigay hate crime and backed a constitutional 50 state ban on gay marriage.
>backed a constitutional 50 state ban on gay marriage.
Interestingly enough, Romney would later be one of the 12 Republican senators to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying gay marriage into US law.
Mitt. But I think Obama was a great president.
The way the current GOP has turned on Romney is appalling. He wasn’t perfect by any means. But I truly believe he’s a good man, with good intentions. I remember supporting him in 2012. His nomination was like the last, dying gasp of the moderate right in the U.S.
I’ve never seen a candidate just give up the way Mittens did after the first debate.
He went at Barry hard in the first debate. The only reason he didn’t have a chainsaw and a hockey mask that night is because he couldn’t find a suit to match them.
Then after that night it’s like he got scared to be seen verbally trashing a black guy. It was like someone reminded him that he’s part of the uni-party and he was going off script.
I remember this election very well. I was 11 and liked Mitt Romney. My parents didn't like either of them so they didn't vote. I still really like Mitt Romney, but with my current views I would vote for Obama. I would still be 100% ok with Mitt Romney winning.
I really like Obama, but if Mitt Romney delays the radicalization of the Republican Party, that’d be nice. Besides, he’d be inclined to treat Russia as a threat, and we might not have election interference (to the same extent) or the war in Ukraine.
to be frank, i don't know. in that moment we have the president who stopped the war in iraq, killed bin laden, stabilized the economy and was trying to brand the path towards universal healthcare. he had mayhaps like fast and furious, benghazi and not fulfilling his promise in afghanistan. we have this other guy, a mormon, who made astounding profits at his business and a good governor of massachusetts. however, making hiccups but providing amazing solutions for problems people thought were laughable at the time. if i had to pick, i'd pick romney because a romney two-term does way better than an obama two-term
So many people here are acting like 2016 was some sudden shift in the GOP and not the culmination of a trend decades in the making.
Also, you can't blame Obama for the racist backlash against him.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/ylf1t0tqwe8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d46c1b52944b6db664043cd53bf9a1c63b8d8e01 Previous election results
https://preview.redd.it/fhnc4s1swe8d1.jpeg?width=582&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6243931713b7c561b99736fefebc330df8cbbe08
https://preview.redd.it/hfctnbtswe8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df4c1c1e1f763149c6927789daab2b6e942f6247
We went from 1832 to 1932 and only voted one democrat (2 if you count van buren)
And that Democrat didn’t even win his IRL election(s)
Two-term president Ross Perot. This sub wildin'
Hahaha I made it list I’m famous I finally did it mom
PeacefulZealot made like 10% of the decisions here
I trust em though
I’m not gonna let this battle be dictated by facts
I’m rich! I got fat stacks and super PACs!
We all know what went down in that 2008 election!
You're a decent politician...
With a winning complection
ALL BARACK AND NO BITE
BEEN NO CHANGE AND WE'RE ALL STILL HOPING
THAT YOULL SHUT YOUR MOUTH
But like Guantanamo Bay, it's still open!
You're from the windy city where you're looking pretty with your blowhards
That you'll shut your mouth
Thanks for doing this, OP. It has been an absolute blast! And for my nomination I say **anyone except Jack Fellure**, the (I shit you not) Prohibition Party nominee in 2012. Drinking a beer for you tonight, Jack.
What a piece of shit, just googled him lmao
I’m dying at this > “In 1992, Fellure filed to run in the New Hampshire, West Virginia and Kansas Republican primaries. By November 1991, he had spent $40,000 of his own money on the campaign, and he sent a King James Bible to the Federal Election Commission as a copy of his platform.”
Literally just the (somehow) shittier version of Pat Buchanan.
540 votes
Ah damn, guess I’ll have to have a beer for Jack tonight, too
Off to the pub for Jack tonight
Whoever won the Epic Rap Battle of History
Lincoln?
By the power invested in me in this giant bald bird
The President shall not be the Shiniest of two Turds
YOU I wanna like you
Dont talk about change just do it
I fought for what was on my brain until a bullet went through it
And YOU! Moneybags! You're a pancake! You're flip-floppity!
It’s a country! Not a company! You can play like Monopoly!
I will properly reach across the aisle and b*tch smack you as equals
Lincoln could spit
FOUR SCORE AND 65 YEARS IN THE PAST, I WON THE CIVIL WAR WITH MY BEARD NOW IM HERE TO KICK YOUR ASS
I saw ERB live several times. It's a total blast. The opening band is also excellent.
I remember when Romney said russia was then a current and growing threat to peace and democracy, and Obama laughed. I laughed. Everybody laughed. Ironically, Mitt might have been the president that told Putin to stuff it and ended russian meddling. Sorry about that, Mitt.
If he wanted to be elected, maybe "Corporations are people" over and over wasn't the right play.
Definitely agree. I voted Obama twice.
There's also that time he told millionaire donors that 47% of us don't pay income tax.
Wasn't he also the one with binders full of women? Amazing what used to pass as a gaffe back in the day.
A literal binder of resumes belonging to women to try to get more women into state government in Massachussetts. Such a scandal. A few years later the Boston Globe was actually able to obtain the binder. [Link](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/10/romney-binders-still-full-women-are-unearthed/NTdYraj1yQ53uVklgnHZtL/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline&s_campaign=)
That's what I'm saying. If Romney ran today he'd be considered the most clean-nosed white bread candidate in the universe.
What exactly would mitt do though that obama didnt? And it's not like Obama was 'soft' on putin or something, yes he (and the rest of the u.s.) underestimated how antagonistic putin was against the west, but he did try oppose the russians and check their power with stuff like syria.
Look, I voted for Obama twice and don't regret it, but the Mueller Report made it pretty clear that his administration's response to russian meddling in US elections was pretty lax. If we acknowledge putin interfered on flump's behalf in 2016, we have to also acknowledge that it occurred during Obama's presidency. Obama's foreign policy also widely considered russia as a non-threat. Hillary Clinton had putin push the famous "reset" button, and they did nothing in response to the annexation of Crimea. I can't say for certain what Romney would have done, but he's been vocal about russia from the start, and fought well as a senator against russian aggression.
So again, what should have been done? People seem to forget how politicized everything had become. Any attempt to do anything about Russia would have immediately been attacked as partisan. Ironically it would have been labeled a form of election interference.
>So again, what should have been done? You see those things I said up there that Obama didn't do? That's pretty much a list of what should have happened. >Any attempt to do anything about Russia would have immediately been attacked as partisan. This is silly. Nobody really thought russia was a concern on either side of the aisle back then, and only became correlated with American conservatism in the wake of the 2016 election. And I already mentioned a time that exact thing happened, and there was nothing "partisan" about it. >Ironically it would have been labeled a form of election interference. Alright, just quit, my dude.
I have no idea how people constantly perceive 2016 so starkly different. The thing that bothers me the most is how so many people look back on all this as it was all so obvious. It's precisely that kind of convenient hindsight that dooms us to repeat our mistakes.
The problem is people like you, who think that whatever *sounds right* according to your very limited body of knowledge on a topic is some kind of revelation.
We really could’ve dodged a bullet with Mitt Romney here
He was half right. They turned out to be a threat. But not a very sophisticated one. That may have accounted for the laughter from well-briefed sitting president.
He didn’t say it was a growing threat. He said it was the number one geostrategic threat to the U.S. (Obama, with several attempted terrorist attacks in recent memory, said it was Al Qaeda.) You can argue he was right or wrong. But get his words right. He didn’t laugh at the idea of it just being a growing threat.
You're wrong. He said it was the number one geopolitical foe.
This is tough, I’m going to be on the side of Obama, but I really would have liked to have seen what Romney could have accomplished with those binders full of women.
Build a fort in the Oval Office!
Too bad Romney didn’t run in 2016 where he could have won.
You think Romney could have beaten Jeb in '16 without the rule 3 guy?
Hands down. Yes.
Any major figure without the baggage of the Bush name stands a fair chance. Jeb! wasn't even second place that Republican primary.
I think Cruz was a bigger threat than Jeb. He was the frontrunner for a short time. Now he's relegated to being Rule 3's lapdog and that guy who read Dr. Seuss once.
Jeb was destined to be like Scott Walker or Ron Desantis. An early favorite due to name recognition and donor money that just doesn't have what it takes. In an alternate universe without Rule 3, I bet Romney still doesn't run but he or Ted would be the top 2. Maybe Marco too.
He definitely wouldn't have won
Against Hillary?? Maybe. We’ll never know.
Plus more tax cuts for the rich😃!
Sorry, I think I missed something. Romney has binders full or women?
Romney, keep the GOP from becoming radicalized and anti establishment
Right wing parties across the west were being radicalised over the 2010s, whether they were in office or not. Romney winning would probably decrease or delay it, but not fully prevent it.
You're right, but I would definitely rather have a Canada style shift in the right over the status quo in the States.
The way the media treated Romney in the 2016 and his milquetoast response to it is largely why the establishment wing of the party had an easier time letting the far right edge of the party take control
The far right has been chomping at the bit for decades. This take always absolves them and the establishment gop of their own culpability.
It's not that complex. Democrats also like figures who are willing to play tough with the establishment in order to get what they want (FDR, LBJ) and view those who are perceived to be rolling over for the opposition (Mondale, Clinton) negatively. Throughout the entire 21st century, Republicans have been settling for people like Bush Jr., McCain and Romney who were all willing to let the media and the opposition shape their own image while they quietly try to work their agenda behind the scenes and try to take the high road in public as much as possible. After so many cycles the electorate was practically craving for a prick with a 'get shit done' sort of attitude and a loud mouth that is eager to retaliate and launch it's own attacks any time. It's a natural cycle that democrats will inevitably go through as well in the future, after a single GOP term I've already seen plenty of discontent democrats who are starting to be unhappy with their candidates always only taking the punches and taking the high road instead of getting down and dirty, this discontentness has already affected the current Presidency, with the current administration's communication being much more direct and confrontative than it was pre-2022.
Sure, but I think it paved the way for people to coalesce around a figure that would be openly combative and hostile to the media in a way that was incredibly norm breaking.
Yeah. Even if Romney had won in 2012 Republican constituencies and other elected officials would have continued to radicalize. Romney himself seems like he would have shut down the worst impulses of the party during his time in office, but the movement that propelled Rule 3 to power in many ways still would’ve happened eventually.
Not always. The UK Conservatives in 2019 weren't vastly different from in 2010.
I don't buy this counterfactual. The crazy element was already evident, though perhaps not ascendant. People believed Obama was a Muslim, and ineligible for office. They had floats of him lynched in small town parades. All before 2012. Romney had a plan of self deportation for immigrants, McCain had ads saying "build the wall" long before rule 3. It took after the 2012 loss for the party to reconsider its immigration stance, only to double down. And those elements only got worse when the Refugee Crises happened along with the war in Syria and Iraq. I don't think a Romney 2012 victory negates any of those. He'd likely end his turn hated by dems for repealing Obamacare, and either buckling to the conservative fringe or being labeled a RINO.
>McCain had ads saying "build the wall" long before rule 3 "Build the wall" didn't really have become a racist trope until rule 3 started using it so I'm not sure that's really a fair statement. Democrats "built walls" too. Carter, Clinton, and Obama all made progress on building a a border wall.
Bill Clinton used to call undocumented immigrants illegal aliens now no democrat can it’s not xenophobic to want to know who cross your border but rule 3 took it to another level
That's the natural end goal.
I completely understand why anyone would be against radicalisation but what's so bad about being anti establishment ?.
Just that its the political climate that bred... yknow... rule 3
Anti establishment tends to attract radicals
There are plenty of libertarians that are anti-establishment, but aren’t radicals. There are plenty of “establishment” folks who are radical. The radicals are around either way
Sometimes radical change is needed. The British would’ve argued that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of redneck militant radicals too.
This is an interesting twist, if we get Romney, we don’t get crazy a few years later.
I’d say Romney for this one. I personally think it would change the timeline for the better.
This is my thought, without mentioning any current administrations, the timeline would have been better.
Through no fault of Obama's
Never said it was his fault
Romney, because a two-term Romney would fix a lot of bad things that happened.
Surprised to see how much support Romney gets with how popular Obama is on the sub.
Amen to that! Especially considering how things went downhill after Obama's second term.
What problems would he have fixed?
Covid would've probably been handled better, and the Republicans would be a lot less evangelical, and a lot more moderate.
A better Covid response that doesn't embolden the conspiracy and antivax criwd
Absolutely not. He still would’ve appointed justices that would’ve overturned Roe. He still would’ve passed a version of the you know who tax cuts. He was in favor of massive cuts to social security and Medicare. He was to the right of Rick Perry on immigration. Mitt Romney would’ve been a terrible president for this country.
I forgot about Roe, so that probably would've been bad. I understand the rest of the stuff, but right of Rick Perry on immigration??? Can you elaborate, cause I've never heard about that.
Romney positioned himself as a hawk on immigration to outflank his primary opponents, mainly McCain and Huckabee starting in 2008. This trend continued against Perry in 2012 when the Romney campaign relentlessly went after a program he had in Texas that allowed undocumented immigrants to qualify for college tuition. Romney did not favor a pathway to citizenship as Bush and Reagan had. He was the most conservative nominee in the modern history of the GOP on immigration. There’s much more if you dig including “self deportation”. Edit: Romney also for a physical barrier on the border which Perry was against(preferring a “smart” border with limited strategic fencing, drones, etc in place of a full physical barrier)
You have to go back a couple decades but Rick Perry came up through a Texas GOP that was actually softer on illegal immigration than today. Romney attacked him for this, most notably a program Perry supported that allowed any student attending HS in Texas to have in-state tuition (including undocumented students).
Given what I know about Republicanism today I would vote for Romney and spend the next 8 years boosting Paul Ryan as much as I possibly could
Paul Ryan? The “there are takers and makers” architect of massive cuts to social security and Medicare which he called “entitlements” Paul Ryan? With an FDR flare???
Well, they *are* entitlements. Legally speaking, you are entitled to social security, and that's what they're called in the federal budget. The word itself has become a bit loaded in the last 10 years, but it's not new terminology when it comes to SS and Medicare. I don't agree with the above poster, but I do sympathize. I strongly disagree with Paul Ryan at a policy level, but at the very least he seems to support democracy. I don't think it's necessary or effective to boost Romney or Ryan in order to stave off Rule 3. Flipping the result of '16 does that.
Romney just for the sake he took the threat of Russia seriously.
I still remember election night 2012. I spent it in this little restaurant/bar just across from Lake Calhoun and Lake of the Isles in Minneapolis, drinking the fine beers that were just about the only thing I liked about that town. It was chilly but not cold. There was a new, red-headed waitress there. She & I celebrated Obama's victory together. Eventually I learned her name, and by February we were dating. Only election that ever got me a girlfriend.
I like that story.
Anyway, I voted for Obama, and I would do it again today.
Romney. Obama’s foreign policy was ass and his second term a bust. Romney being a two term president keeps the GOP more moderate and he’d govern pragmatically and handle foreign policy and Covid better than Obama and rule 3.
Obama, we have reached the end of this now.
Correct answer is vermin supreme, need those free ponies.
Yeah well he’s not on here
Guess we need a write in campaign then.
Although I'll say Romney to help fight and possibly prevent what became of the Republican party, I do wonder if gay marriage is legalized.
Obama winning in 2012 literally gave us Rule 3 in 2016, not to mention that in the grand scheme of things I think Romney may have been a better choice for the US for 2012 in the long run compared to Obama. Romney foresaw a lot of things that have happened since that election, and no one listened to him.
Exactly I feel like because he is overshadowed by an insanely charismatic president and a famous one at that people forgot the things he was right about, he was right about Russia and imo would’ve been tougher on foreign policy than Obama was. Also we don’t have the radical left and right today without Obama winning in 2012, the right went nuts and then the left did after rule 3. With Romney we have a nice and moderate political system still imo.
There is no “radical left” in the US, to argue so is disingenuous. Dems would be center-right in other developed democracies. You have a group of legitimate fascists post-2016/2020 that pull everyone else right. I agree Romney would have helped, but probably just delayed the inevitable turn to right-wing extremism for a very loud minority of people waiting for a leader.
what are the Palestine protests then? People shouting intifada revolution at the top of their lungs because some Tik-Toker told them too? Prominent leftists like Noam Chomsky just don't exist? You are being disingenuous if you actual believe "there is no radical left" in the USA.
Those are protests that align politically for left-leaning people, protest against a theocratic & genocidal regime is not radical I mean that true leftists lack a platform in US politics to enact significant change. Dems do not represent true left politics supported worldwide, it is a massive range of mostly (US) center-left with some progressives/Dem-Socialists/Leftists scattered in it
Very surprised how many people are saying Romney
Romney without a question. I worked for him then and we can definitely say with hindsight he was better prepared for the 2012 and later foreign policy issues than Obama.
Romney. If he wins, the republican party stays normal. Romney's loss was the last straw in the radicalization of the republican party. It made the radical candidates more appealing to the republican electorate because "the other guys couldn't get it done." If Romney wins, the Republicans do not overcorrect gong forward.
Romney was out centre casting for nice guy and got his butt kicked. So the GOP took the lessons don’t waste your time trying to play nice with the media or Dems.
Romney for sure
This was my first election. Freshman in college who turned 18 a week before Election Day. I proudly went and voted for Romney and was a proud Republican. Called people for his campaign because I truly thought he would’ve been a great president. Nowadays I’m a lot more liberal and believe would vote for Obama, but still would’ve respected Mitt as the opposing candidate
4 more years!
Mittens was right about Russia, but that's about it. See you later, Mitt.
Romney
Obama, although I was hoping he’d be more liberal in 2008.
Obama
Obama. He was heading in a good direction and every time Romney opened his mouth it was so out of touch.
Thanks OP this has been fun!
Gary Johnson
Obama, but I would have been okay with Romney. If I knew Rule 3 would happen, Romney just to prevent that.
Obama and come in it's not even close.
Obamna
Obama. Just because the likes of McCain and Romney were against what came after them and that faction which has since taken over the Republican Party doesn’t mean their views and positions were not utterly abhorrent themselves. I don’t even think too highly of Obama’s presidency, but he had the benefit of going up against terrible opponents so being better than them is really a low bar. For me at least, Romney (and McCain)’s just too far right for me to even remotely consider - though I have some time for Mitt’s old man
I wouldn't mind Romney winning, but I'd go with Obama cuz of his accomplishments over the last four years. Obamacare has me sold on him.
I don't get this Obamacare made my insurance go up from $175 mo to over $700 mo and I was only making $500 take home a week. Glad it helped you but don't forget all the people it screwed over too.
Ending the whole idea of pre existing conditions is pretty massive.
Because the end goal is to destroy the insurance companies, they only exist to drive prices up.
Gary Johnson
Looks like Barrack Obama is the grand finale. I see Romney has potential in Utah politics though.
He’s retiring after his current term as senator comes to a close. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/us/politics/mitt-romney-retirement.html#:~:text=Senator%20Mitt%20Romney%20of%20Utah,“new%20generation%20of%20leaders.”
Gary Johnson
The second presidential election I ever voted in, and I was happy to cast my vote for Obama. The past four years had its challenges: the ACA rollout wasn’t great and the GOP congress has put up every conceivable road block with the Tea Party. However, the country is moving in the right direction, the ACA will help me and millions of others get healthcare, and the man got Osama! Romney on the other hand was an out of touch rich guy who wanted my home town to go Bankrupt, and should I also mention he had “Binders full of women.”
Obama!
Definitely Obama. I get the Romney’s like not a fascist and more or less a nice guy, which is definitely good, but let’s just be honest and admit his ideas weren’t even half baked and he would have made a mediocre President.
I voted for Obama as I did in 2008 and if I could I would’ve voted for him in 2016 as well. Romney was a corporate Republican who had no interest in the average American. Obama is an intelligent man of principle .
Two elections in a row where the Republicans nominated their actual best candidate. Still Obama.
Never thought of it this way, but I wonder if part of that was because they recognized Obama would appeal to independents, and so they figured they needed to nominate someone to appeal to independents as well.
Obama. First president to back gay marriage in office vs the guy who committed an antigay hate crime and backed a constitutional 50 state ban on gay marriage.
>backed a constitutional 50 state ban on gay marriage. Interestingly enough, Romney would later be one of the 12 Republican senators to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act, codifying gay marriage into US law.
love mr beat
Bama
Mr beat the man
Both good men , more importantly let’s get rid of the orange pathological liar please
Mitt. But I think Obama was a great president. The way the current GOP has turned on Romney is appalling. He wasn’t perfect by any means. But I truly believe he’s a good man, with good intentions. I remember supporting him in 2012. His nomination was like the last, dying gasp of the moderate right in the U.S.
“Please proceed, Governor.”
Hmm, well I do like Big Bird so I’ll have to go with Obama
He had binders full of women! How could you not vote Mitt?
Romney
I’ve never seen a candidate just give up the way Mittens did after the first debate. He went at Barry hard in the first debate. The only reason he didn’t have a chainsaw and a hockey mask that night is because he couldn’t find a suit to match them. Then after that night it’s like he got scared to be seen verbally trashing a black guy. It was like someone reminded him that he’s part of the uni-party and he was going off script.
I remember this election very well. I was 11 and liked Mitt Romney. My parents didn't like either of them so they didn't vote. I still really like Mitt Romney, but with my current views I would vote for Obama. I would still be 100% ok with Mitt Romney winning.
Barry, of course 😄
I really like Obama, but if Mitt Romney delays the radicalization of the Republican Party, that’d be nice. Besides, he’d be inclined to treat Russia as a threat, and we might not have election interference (to the same extent) or the war in Ukraine.
Obama
I'm voting Obama. The Affordable Care Act was a big fucking deal.
Bring Barry Back!
Hope you do 2016 and 2020 next.
Romney v Obama was lacking in contrast.
It would be an injustice if vermin supreme wasn’t on the list of winners
to be frank, i don't know. in that moment we have the president who stopped the war in iraq, killed bin laden, stabilized the economy and was trying to brand the path towards universal healthcare. he had mayhaps like fast and furious, benghazi and not fulfilling his promise in afghanistan. we have this other guy, a mormon, who made astounding profits at his business and a good governor of massachusetts. however, making hiccups but providing amazing solutions for problems people thought were laughable at the time. if i had to pick, i'd pick romney because a romney two-term does way better than an obama two-term
Obama
Obama once again
Barack
Obama
Obama In real life I voted for Mitt. But here on Reddit, my heart and mind is with BO.
So many people here are acting like 2016 was some sudden shift in the GOP and not the culmination of a trend decades in the making. Also, you can't blame Obama for the racist backlash against him.