2010 Midterms for a McCain Presidency

@Sevarics I could see LA not flipping, so 75 Democratic Senators by 2013. But... MN and OR were decided by less than 0.1% and 4%, respectively IOTL, so without an Obama blowout, there'd be lessee coattails in the Senate, so the Democrats lose those races. But the Democrats can get them in 2014 ITTL.
 
Everything progressive. Shameless promoting, but yeah, my TL in the signature, "Yes We Will", the threadmarks about Hillary Clinton's* programs there, esp. the "Just Deal", everything in them.

*IMO Hillary Clinton is really more inclined to progressivism than many think. It's just that she's more of a realist, that's why she was not mentioning more progressive proposals in her 2016 platform. Also, she's the 11th most liberal Senator during her time there, and is said by FiveThirtyEight to be as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and a bit more moderate than Bernie Sanders. So... what I'm pointing out is that ITTL, Hillary Clinton coule be an amazing leader, still.

Also, if Obama and Feingold run in 2012, they could split the liberal vote who think that "Hillary's a moderate!" And she wins conservatives and moderates, and there might be this vibe that had she won the Dem nomination in 2008, so she could win the nomination and pick either Obama or Feingold as her running mate; IMO, Obama is her best bet.

Honestly, the Clintons did a fair bit to damage the Democrats more liberal ambitions and so on. Heck, she was a Republican back when she was younger.

Granted, remember, this 2008-2012 will be run by the GOP. The recession is still happening if not made worse by the conservative McCain administration's cuts to infrastructure. He might've gotten us into more trouble depending on his handling of the Arab Spring and the bank bailouts would be something that Feinstein and Sanders would both target on to the voters. The more radical backlash to the GOP would get Feinstein attention. He does have the reputation already as the libreral maverick, but that would benefit him here as "hey, this guy was right all along!"
 
I really don't get why people are so hung up on this one, Cenk Uyger was also a Republican in his college days and you'd be hard pressed to call him a Conservative these days.

Maybe it's because HRC is a public servant whose views and policies had a tangible impact on the world (failed health care push, Iraq War vote, Libya, etc), while Uyger is an internet pundit. That's a pretty big difference, and a good reason why Clinton's beliefs - like those of any politician - are challenged more seriously.
 
Maybe it's because HRC is a public servant whose views and policies had a tangible impact on the world (failed health care push, Iraq War vote, Libya, etc), while Uyger is an internet pundit. That's a pretty big difference, and a good reason why Clinton's beliefs - like those of any politician - are challenged more seriously.

Well, Hilliary would not have Libya under her belt, which could help her. However, if she supports McCain’s expeditions into the Middle East during the Arab Spring, that could cost her big time. I’m thinking the more hawkish of the Dems would find themselves in trouble.
 
Well, Hilliary would not have Libya under her belt, which could help her. However, if she supports McCain’s expeditions into the Middle East during the Arab Spring, that could cost her big time. I’m thinking the more hawkish of the Dems would find themselves in trouble.

Well, by 2010 a neocon foreign policy would be less popular than it was in 2003. So Clinton, Biden, etc would have some political incentive to oppose McCain's most hawkish actions.
 
Well, by 2010 a neocon foreign policy would be less popular than it was in 2003. So Clinton, Biden, etc would have some political incentive to oppose McCain's most hawkish actions.
I do mean things like increasing the military budget and so on. Something the more left-wing Dems would start opposing
 
Top