Bush-McCain '88

Apparently, according to MSNBC, McCain was strongly considered for the 1988 ticket.

After another house term, McCain runs for the senate in 1986. He plays up his connection to President Reagan.

Former President Ronald Reagan: The people of Arizona can do themselves and me a big favor by electing John McCain to the U.S. Senate.

McCain connects with retiring Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, whose legendary seat he hopes to win.

For two years he sails along, standing with conservatives against abortion rights and gun control.

And he's mentioned as a possible running mate for George Bush in the 1988 presidential campaign.

(Jane Pauley and McCain)

Jane Pauley: Senator, there was a rumor yesterday you were on standby for the ticket, should Senator Quayle be removed.

Sen. McCain: No, no. I simply don't believe that. They haven't even looked at my tax returns [laughing].

So let's say McCain does wind up as the VP—what happens?
 
1) Bush wins the 1988 election with a bit more room to spare. There's no "a heartbeat away" campaign against Quayle nor is there the "I knew JFK and you're no JFK" moment. McCain isn't famous enough in 1988 to be Llyod Bentsen to George Bush. Doubtful that McCain can prevent or undo the "no new taxes" pledge.

2) I think history would go pretty much as OTL until 1992. Then the question is whether or not Ross Perot still runs. I can't think of an immediate reason why not. If so, then Clinton probably still wins.

3) What does McCain do after being VP? He might run for the Senate again in 1994 (the other Arizona Senate seat was up for re-election). Probably not. He doesn't need the notoreity because he already has a good shot for the Republican nomination in 1996. The problem is that he'd be running as a representative of the Bush administration and it's hard to know whether he'd have anything like the reputation he does now, as a maverick-independent reformer. Still, even as a relative unknown, he'd probably give Clinton a much closer run for his money that Bob Dole did. But with Perot probably still running and Clinton's strong support in the South I don't think he can pull of a win.

All of this assumes a very low butterfly threshold. IMO, it's very hard to know what difference a VP McCain would have because Dan Quayle was so much of a nobody. For example, might his advice change Bush's decisions at some point during the Gulf War? Might it similarly change his decision to break the no new taxes pledge? Might his prescence change any of the decisions of Ross Perot (who dropped out of the race in June, even though he was polling ahead of Clinton and Bush at the time)? Hard to say without gaming things out step by step.

Note that if Perot does run in 1992 and he still chooses Jim Stockdale, then things will be very interesting. Like McCain Stockdale was a POW in Vietnam. This may change his decision to accept Perot's offer and may change the press coverage of him to alter the race.
 
I believe that McCain would be instrumental in the First Gulf War, but would also see public opinion for or against, something Quayle I don't think could have done.

He would also have been a large voice against tax increases, which might have hurt his chances in joining Georgie boy for a second term, however; if he was allowed, I think he'd be a stronger candidate than Perot, and wouldn't have brought a few conservative-moderates away from Bush in the election.

Come 1996, if things were still going well, he'd probably win large against whoever the Democrats through against him, although by 2000 I think there would be a Democratial Candidate who could challenge and defeat him, especially if the Republicans managed to oust the Democrats in the '95 elections.

That being said, had McCain been the running mate, and then president, I do not believe that the Republicans WOULD have taken the Congress at all, or if they did, it would not have been such a large margin.
 
That being said, had McCain been the running mate, and then president, I do not believe that the Republicans WOULD have taken the Congress at all, or if they did, it would not have been such a large margin.

Simple geography. The majority of the House seats the Republicans picked up were from the South, and represented retiring conservative Democrats who were still there purely on local name recognition, not party affiliation.
 
Simple geography. The majority of the House seats the Republicans picked up were from the South, and represented retiring conservative Democrats who were still there purely on local name recognition, not party affiliation.

Well, you also had the fact that the Speaker of the House Tom Foley, of Washington State, was defeated--the first sitting Speaker since 1860 to be defeated for re-election to his House seat. A little more than just geography, I think.
 
Well, you also had the fact that the Speaker of the House Tom Foley, of Washington State, was defeated--the first sitting Speaker since 1860 to be defeated for re-election to his House seat. A little more than just geography, I think.

Wasn't Foley corrupt? I read one of Rush Limbaugh's books from this time period and he harped on Foley endlessly (although I can't remember specifics).
 
Wasn't Foley corrupt? I read one of Rush Limbaugh's books from this time period and he harped on Foley endlessly (although I can't remember specifics).

The big issue in Foley's race in 1994 was term limits. In 1992, the people of Washington approved term limits and even extended them to their representatives. Foley took the law to court and the court overturned it, arguing that the State couldn't make Federal election law and the limits violated Article I of the Constitution itself. Foley's opponent, George Nethercutt, ran heavily on the issue.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if he had been accused of corruption during a campaign on the issue of term limits--on of the premises of the Contract with America was that the Democratic Congress couldn't be trusted because they were all encumbered to some special interest, etc.--but an accusation does not corruption make.
 
Well, you also had the fact that the Speaker of the House Tom Foley, of Washington State, was defeated--the first sitting Speaker since 1860 to be defeated for re-election to his House seat. A little more than just geography, I think.

Sure, but even if the Democratic Congress was as pure as the virgin snow (since corruption was perhaps the biggest factor in the Republicans gaining control besides geography) they were still going to lose a raft of Southern seats.

Unless McCain being VP turns the Democratic Congress into a magical uncorrupted version of itself, they were going to lose control sometime between 1992-6 depending on how well the Republicans market themselves.
 
Sure, but even if the Democratic Congress was as pure as the virgin snow (since corruption was perhaps the biggest factor in the Republicans gaining control besides geography) they were still going to lose a raft of Southern seats.

Unless McCain being VP turns the Democratic Congress into a magical uncorrupted version of itself, they were going to lose control sometime between 1992-6 depending on how well the Republicans market themselves.

I think you're probably right, but WI instead of focusing on trying to win the Presidential election, Perot organizes third party contenders to take a swing block in the House. If McCain does indeed keep Bush from losing in 1992, perhaps the generational shift leaves an opening for a nascent party?
 
I think that the 1992 election would be closer than in OTL but that Bush/McCain would still lose. (Remember the economy stupid)

I wonder about 1996?
 
A-hah, potential interesting development. In 1989, McCain was one of 5 Senators involved in the Keating Five Scandal (that they had pressured the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to back off an investigation of Charles Keating). He and John Glenn were largely cleared of malicious involvedment. OTL, after this event came McCain's passion for campaign finance reform. If he's vice-president at the time, he may get a lot more negative press.
 
Sure, but even if the Democratic Congress was as pure as the virgin snow (since corruption was perhaps the biggest factor in the Republicans gaining control besides geography) they were still going to lose a raft of Southern seats.

Unless McCain being VP turns the Democratic Congress into a magical uncorrupted version of itself, they were going to lose control sometime between 1992-6 depending on how well the Republicans market themselves.

I figured with McCain being VP and a possible candidate for President, would bring many liberally minded people to keep a good chunkful of corruptable people into power, just to keep balance between the two parties. Aka a party alliegence thing. A few seriously corrupted Democrats would have lost no doubt, but look at Kennedy, he's a corrupt as they came, and still won. Then again, he also comes from a part of the country that's political loyalty squared.
 
Top