2008 without Obama and Clinton

Butterflies would suggest no. As for Rudy: this is an economic election. In the base's eyes, it's bad enough that one RINO heads the ticket, and Rudy, national security aside, is hardly a base-pleaser. Pawlenty is the only other option.

Let's not forget Tom Ridge. Ridge, having been a governor with a reasonably solid economic record, would have some chops in that regard, while doubling down on McCain's homeland security credentials, and he also has the benefit of coming from PA. He's pro-choice, which would hurt with the base, but other than that, he's probably what might be called "conservative enough."
 
"If McCain does that, he will destroy the Republican Party and have put the conservative movement on the bleachers!"

- Rush on a potential pro-choice VP, July 2008
 
^ From Game Change.

This is true, and its what kept him from naming Lieberman as his VP. That was why Palin was so untested/prepared, because McCain had been focused on Lieberman until it was so close, and that Rush thing happened. They had a week to five days to vet her and prepare her for what was going to happen, if this was going to happen. What a mistake. If McCain had Lieberman on the ticket, I think he'd have had a genuine shot to win. It would reinforce the maverick image and show he meant to end the partisanship. If he had slightly more liberal social positions, I might have even considered voting for him.
 
Rush made McCain wake up to the fact that picking Lieberman is ASB because he needed someone with base appeal who was reasonably competent and knowledgeable without turning off Indies. The only person on the shortlist who fit that bill and would accept was Pawlenty. To put this in Democratic terms: how many Dem base voters would vote for a Schweitzer/Nelson or Lieberman/Landrieu ticket?
 
Top