AHC: McCain elected in ‘08, more successful than Obama in terms of jobs, economy, banks, etc.

For example, maybe McCain pushes through his own version of Dodd-Frank which both has more teeth and is more popular.

Perhaps McCain instructs the Justice Dept. that if there’s legitimately more than a 50% chance of getting a conviction against an executive of a financial institution, you go ahead and bring those charges and let the jury decide.

* I’m using the word “banks” as shorthand for both banks and large investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc.
 
Last edited:
For example, maybe McCain pushes through his own version of Dodd-Frank which both has more teeth and is more popular.

Perhaps McCain instructs the Justice Dept. that if there’s legitimately more than a 50% chance of getting a conviction against an executive of a financial institution, you go ahead and bring those charges and let the jury decide.

* I’m using the word “banks” as shorthand for both banks and large investment firms such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc.

None of this is going to happen. McCain's chief economic advisor was former Senator Phil Gramm, a hardline conservative who co wrote the repeal of Glass-Steagall. McCain's right wing base would recoil at any of these regulatory practices, calling them "socialist" and accusing McCain of being a RINO. He'd face a primary challenge in 2012, one he has a decent chance of losing. If Obama was unwilling to do most of this, then neither would McCain.
 
. . . would recoil at any of these regulatory practices, calling them "socialist" and accusing McCain of being a RINO. . .
I’m very open to the idea that political parties in America are not class based. Instead, they’re much more about cultural signifiers.

Besides, in late 2008 and early ‘09 I really think the majority of American voters were ready to bring the Hammer of God down upon Wall Street.
 
This would butterfly his brain cancer right?
No, unfortunately it will not. John was diagnosed with brain cancer in July 2017, which in this scenario would be about six months after he left office.

It could affect him in the later months of his presidency, I don’t know on this point, I’m not a doctor.
 
I’m very open to the idea that political parties in America are not class based.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but those attacks I speculated about were the exact same attacks levied against Obama for governing as a centrist. (In fact he compared himself to a moderate Republican in 2012). That's just how the right-wing perceived any attempts by "big government" to stabilize the economy and help ordinary people. In fact they shot down Bush's first bailout of the economy in 2008 because they rejected any government interference with the economy on principle. If McCain or any President "brings down the hammer" on Wall Street as you say, they will cry to high heaven about government tyranny and socialism. Maybe that's what some of the American electorate wanted, but it wasn't reflected in the leadership of either party in 2009. As Obama told a group of business leaders after he took office, "I'm here to stand between you and the pitchforks." And as I mentioned earlier Phil Gramm was expected to be McCain's Secretary of the Treasury. There's just no way he would allow the kind of populist policies that even Democrats like Obama, HRC, etc wouldn't touch.
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but those attacks I speculated about were the exact same attacks levied against Obama for governing as a centrist. (In fact he compared himself to a moderate Republican in 2012). That's just how the right-wing perceived any attempts by "big government" to stabilize the economy and help ordinary people. In fact they shot down Bush's first bailout of the economy in 2008 because they rejected any government interference with the economy on principle. If McCain or any President "brings down the hammer" on Wall Street as you say, they will cry to high heaven about government tyranny and socialism. Maybe that's what some of the American electorate wanted, but it wasn't reflected in the leadership of either party in 2009. As Obama told a group of business leaders after he took office, "I'm here to stand between you and the pitchforks." And as I mentioned earlier Phil Gramm was expected to be McCain's Secretary of the Treasury. There's just no way he would allow the kind of populist policies that even Democrats like Obama, HRC, etc wouldn't touch.

I think you're right that Congress would probably shoot down some of the suggested populist policies, but I don't think that means McCain wouldn't touch them. As a Republican, he's in a unique position to give it a shot - I can't see Democrats credibly calling him a socialist, and only the furthest right of Republicans would likely do so. He's somewhat unlikely to go against Republican orthodoxy, but I don't know if it's necessarily impossible to see him making some stronger moves than Obama did. There's wiggle room for him to try it, and while he would near certainly face a primary challenge from the right in 2012, he may actually embrace his "maverick" image and make the calculation that he's not likely to win reelection anyways and therefore act boldly.

Unlikely, I admit wholeheartedly, but not impossible IMO.
 
The Best way for this to happen is have Kerry win in 2004, the crash happens on schedule, Kerry gets blamed, and McCain defeats him. The question is how do McCain and a GOP controlled Congress get better results than Obama? I just can't see a McCain elected to succeed a two term Bush being a successful two term President.
 
The question is how do McCain and a GOP controlled Congress get better results than Obama?

They probably don't, and McCain loses in 2012 (though whether the Democratic nominee would be Clinton or Obama is hard to say).
 
To handle the crash better, he would need to shackle the banks, who were OTL given everything they wanted while being asked nothing in return. I don't see a GOP senator like McCain doing that.
 
. . . those attacks I speculated about were the exact same attacks levied against Obama . . .
But then again, only Nixon could go to China, which I think is a pretty strong argument.

Similarly, only Reagan could get the INF Treaty regarding intermediate range missiles in Europe, and esp. shepherd it through Senate ratification. And only Clinton could get welfare reform.
 
I tend to think that McCain COULD take on the banks but the odds that he WOULD are almost nill. The outcry would come less from the base and more from the financial establishment and donors of the GOP. The base, if McCain can present them with enough evidence of wrongdoing, will run with it. He could use the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt to justify the actions coming from the GOP. But, as has been said earlier in this thread, he's never going to do it.
 
But then again, only Nixon could go to China, which I think is a pretty strong argument.

By 1972 any Republican could have recognized China for the same reasons Nixon did and gotten away with it. A liberal like Rockefeller may have been attacked from the far right as an "appeaser" because of Goldwater's personal animosity towards him, but the vast majority of the country including most Republicans approved of recognizing China. It was the Democrats who had their hands tied in this regard, since they "lost" China in 1949.

Similarly, only Reagan could get the INF Treaty regarding intermediate range missiles in Europe, and esp. shepherd it through Senate ratification.

This I seriously doubt. Detente had bipartisan support since 1972, and all the major arms treaties that Presidents submitted to Congress (SALT 1 & 2, START 1) were passed.

And only Clinton could get welfare reform.

Any Republican President would've signed welfare reform into law. It wasn't Clinton's initiative remember, it was that of the Republican Congress which passed it three times. The first two times Clinton vetoed it, but under political pressure he buckled and reluctantly signed the third bill into law in 1996.

Anyway, you do have a broader point that being a conservative McCain would have some political cover to punish banks and with this I agree. Certainly more than Obama would, which ties into the whole "only Nixon could go to China" trope. (Though as I pointed out above it's more accurate to say that "only a Republican could go to China"). But by 2009 America was well to the right politically of where it was in 1972. If a Republican President tried to do anything Nixon did (price controls, create new government agencies like the EPA, etc) then they would be the subject of furious hatred from the conservative base and would face a primary challenge in 2012. Whatever political cover McCain has by being a Republican would be outweighed by the full force of the conservative movement's opposition to him for "betraying" the GOP, Reagan's legacy, and the American people. (This may sound hysterical, that's because it is. But that's where the GOP was at by 2010 and 2008 is too late a POD to stop that...).
 
. . . would need to shackle the banks, who were OTL given everything they wanted while being asked nothing in return. . .
That's not true. Dodd-Frank made key banks better report their financial position and keep better reserves. Now, I do agree that it wasn't near enough.

An exchange between Hillary and Bernie is illustrative in this regard. Bernie said, we should break up the largish banks. Hillary said, that's not going to help with players like AIG (American International Group) which is a lynchpin financial institution even though I understand it's more of an insurance company than a bank. I think both Hillary and Bernie are largely correct! :)
 
I tend to think that McCain COULD take on the banks but the odds that he WOULD are almost nill. . .
It's on the agenda. McCain has to do something about both the financial institution crisis and the resulting recession.



And remember in Sept., Oct., Nov. '08 when the conversation of "Too Big To Fail" was a really big deal. And I think most voters viewed it as a big situation we had drifted into and needed to get out of.
 
. . . and all the major arms treaties that Presidents submitted to Congress (SALT 1 & 2, START 1) were passed. . .
Not for Carter. I think it was SALT 2 he submitted to the Senate in '79 and it didn't look like it was going to pass. And then Carter withdrew it after the Dec. '79 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And everyone please remember, U.S. treaties need 2/3's Senate ratification. I personally wish it was simply majority and view this as another supermajority flaw of our system. Of course, your mileage may vary.
 
Between the vast unpopularity of the Bushleaguer and the poor economic climate, a Republican victory in '08 was highly unlikely from the start. It didn't help that Obama was a very strong candidate.

Even if he did somehow win (Obama has a very public health crisis, and a dead-boy level scandal, and the economy starts improving temporarily?), McCain's administration would be front-loaded with lots of free-market types who wouldn't want to do the regulation absolutely necessary to deal with the crisis.

He'd be voted out of office in a landslide in 2012 and we'd have President Clinton.
 
"He’ll apologize for being a member of the Keating Five, even if you don’t ask him about it. It drives the staff nuts.” -- long-time staffer Mark Salter, and co-author of McCain’s autobiography Faith of My Fathers


Flawed Hero
John McCain creates the confessional candidacy.
By Joe Klein, New Yorker, Jan 17, 2000

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/01/17/flawed-hero/amp
Keating 5

This may be a big added reason McCain wants do it right regarding the whole constellation of banking issue. Heck, he might even over-compensate.
 
Last edited:
Top