WI McCain picked Lieberman for VP in 2008
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
He did, but since Obama got 49.85% in Indiana in 2008, nearly any Libertarian on the ballot would have cost McCain the state.
And small L libertarians in other states would be less inclined to vote for McCain Lieberman than they were McCain Palin.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
If they announced both of these decisions together, the media would not be able to only focus on the ways Joe Lieberman was out of step with the average Republican voter.
Problem is, you’re then a lame duck from the very beginning! (or at least from the mid-term elections from your one and only term)
There was almost no way that McCain would have won in 2008. Romney in 2012 is a different story
While they could be noisy, the truth is that there never were that many of these voters in 2008. They would not have had much of an impact, as most of the bitter-ender Hillary voters actually voted for Obama. I don't see Lieberman changing this. If anything, Lieberman on the GOP ticket might have energized the left, which saw to it that Lieberman lost his 2006 Senate primary in Connecticut. It's hard to underestimate how much the left hated Lieberman in 2008.
Lot of racism in that set. I see a goodly number of "McCain Democrats" defecting from them.
Deleted member 83898
In the event that McCain does pick Lieberman as his running mate, how is the the trajectory of the GOP impacted? Does the Republican coalition look any different than it does today or at any point from 2009-2017?
elkarlo
Banned
I agree a lot with what has been said. Lieberman now in retrospect seems like a better choice, but I think he would have either caused opposition by the R, or would have reduced voter turnout for the R.
I remember when palin was chosen and there was a a shockwave of awe, almost like a tingling feeling during those first heady days.
I remember when palin was chosen and there was a a shockwave of awe, almost like a tingling feeling during those first heady days.
Pawlenty would just have been dull, and could not possibly deliver MN to McCain in 2008 (Obama won it by over ten points in 2008). He would have very little impact on the results of the presidential election. However, he could have had an impact in another way: his candidacy would probably have boosted the GOP in MN enough to defeat Franken. Which means that the Democrats would not even temporarily have a filibuster-proof 60-40 majority to pass the ACA (only a simple majority was needed to pass the final bill using reconciliation--but first there had to be a bill that had passed the Senate to reconcile with the House bill).
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Tim Pawlenty doesn’t have national experience, as in national security issues, where he could potentially help with the phase down in Afghanistan and Iraq.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
And if McCain was very lucky, he would have picked a VP nominee late August, say who was on the House or Senate committee which oversees banking law. And then come the financial institution crisis and near-meltdown in late September, this man or woman would have been a hot commodity and an experienced senior advisor for McCain. But this would have been a stroke of good luck largely impossible to anticipate in advance (at least the timing).
The other two finalists on McCain's shortlist were Tom Ridge and Mitt Romney. Tom Ridge was pro-choice and Pennsylvania was pretty far from swinging in 2008. Mitt Romney would have probably excited his supporters, but it is said McCain and Romney loathed each other after the primaries. Although I wonder, what effect would Romney being the 2008 VP nominee have on Romney's candidacy in ATL 2012? I remember some conservatives were hoping McCain would select Jim DeMint, John Thune, Matt Blunt, or Mark Sanford as his VP nominee, but DeMint, Thune, and Blunt would have only served as Senators and Governor respectively for three years and Sanford didn't seem interested in VP, but might have swung North Carolina.
Last edited:
If anything, it would have hurt McCain. "You were on the committee that oversees banking. Why didn't you see this coming and do something about it? If anything, you contributed to it by supporting deregulation [which virtually all Republicans, as well as many Democrats, did]" etc.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
I agree it’s risky. Might be able to spin it as shades of FDR appointing Joe Kennedy, Sr., as one best person to lead new SEC.
For example, this VP nominee might say, ‘I was wrong. I was wrong as I could be, and I made a big mistake. I’ll say this, the big boy banks like Chase won’t be able to fool me a second time.’
Clearly the way to play it.
50-50 chance it will work. State it plainly with matter-of-fact confidence. Say it like, of course we can get past this scape. We’re the United States of America. And we’ll be smarter and tougher as a result, and we’ll also appreciate community more. [How might you write this speech and/or approach?]
McCain/Lieberman loses. Connecticut Democrats and independents, incensed at his betrayal, vote him out of the senate. Senator Ned Lamont, despite pressure from insurance companies does not threaten to fillibuster the public option for the ACA, and by 2016 most Americans are on Medicaid.