Let's wave our hands and make the Great Recession start a year early. Lehman Brothers falls in September 2007, and by early 2008 the US economy is hemorrhaging 500,000 jobs a month. This obviously will have many important effects. But right now I only want to discuss one: the effects on the 2008 US elections. The Democrats will doubtless win in November 2008 as unemployment peaks around then. But the question is: *which* Democratic candidate for the presidency will win?
My guess is that this scenario will help Hillary Clinton and hurt Barack Obama in the presidential primaries. Less emphasis on hope and change and more of an "OMG we've got to get someone who can fix this" with Hillary's evocation about how good the economy was under her husband's administration being more persuasive than in OTL. Obama might of course try to rebut with things like "But your husband supported repeal of Glass-Steagall" but (1) I don't think the public will care that much about such details, and (2) Obama has never been particularly convincing as an economic populist. Indeed, Obama simply does not as of 2008 have any real economic record and was not planning to run on the economy (which was--at least superficially--in pretty good shape when he decided to run). In the early part of his campaign, he put a lot of emphasis on Hillary's vote for the Iraq AUMF--something which will be a lot less important in this ATL, as voters focus more on the economy.
Perhaps Edwards with his economic populism will benefit for a while, but by the time of the convention the news of his extramarital affair will be out, and that will kill his chances.
I do see one strong case for saying that Hillary's defeat was inevitable in 2008 regardless of the state of the economy--her puzzling neglect of most of the caucus states. But perhaps with a stronger Edwards candidacy, she would pay more attention to them.
Meanwhile, what is the effect on the GOP primaries? McCain never seemed to have wanted to focus on the economy. Does the recession help Mitt Romney with his "I'm a businessman, I can turn the economy around"? Or on the contrary does it make the portrayal of him as a heartless plutocrat who enjoys laying people off more convincing? (Granted this portrayal is more persuasive to Democrats than to Republican primary voters, but in 2012 it seemed to have some resonance for a while even among the latter.) Huckabee's social issues are eclipsed, but he also had an economic populist side. Of course Giuliani's "vote for me because 9/11" becomes even more irrelevant than in OTL...
My guess is that this scenario will help Hillary Clinton and hurt Barack Obama in the presidential primaries. Less emphasis on hope and change and more of an "OMG we've got to get someone who can fix this" with Hillary's evocation about how good the economy was under her husband's administration being more persuasive than in OTL. Obama might of course try to rebut with things like "But your husband supported repeal of Glass-Steagall" but (1) I don't think the public will care that much about such details, and (2) Obama has never been particularly convincing as an economic populist. Indeed, Obama simply does not as of 2008 have any real economic record and was not planning to run on the economy (which was--at least superficially--in pretty good shape when he decided to run). In the early part of his campaign, he put a lot of emphasis on Hillary's vote for the Iraq AUMF--something which will be a lot less important in this ATL, as voters focus more on the economy.
Perhaps Edwards with his economic populism will benefit for a while, but by the time of the convention the news of his extramarital affair will be out, and that will kill his chances.
I do see one strong case for saying that Hillary's defeat was inevitable in 2008 regardless of the state of the economy--her puzzling neglect of most of the caucus states. But perhaps with a stronger Edwards candidacy, she would pay more attention to them.
Meanwhile, what is the effect on the GOP primaries? McCain never seemed to have wanted to focus on the economy. Does the recession help Mitt Romney with his "I'm a businessman, I can turn the economy around"? Or on the contrary does it make the portrayal of him as a heartless plutocrat who enjoys laying people off more convincing? (Granted this portrayal is more persuasive to Democrats than to Republican primary voters, but in 2012 it seemed to have some resonance for a while even among the latter.) Huckabee's social issues are eclipsed, but he also had an economic populist side. Of course Giuliani's "vote for me because 9/11" becomes even more irrelevant than in OTL...
