This is my first attempt at a DBWI.

What if the Republican nominee of 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona selected Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his Vice Presidential nominee instead of Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota? Palin, while inexperienced and not providing geographical balance or flipping any swing states, appealed to conservatives disappointed by McCain and may have won female votes from Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. On the other hand, Pawlenty appealed to moderate Republicans and conservative-leaning independents estranged to Clinton. Polls showed Pawlenty lost to his Democratic opponent Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana at the Vice Presidential debate; do you think Palin would have performed better? Although McCain-Pawlenty's defeat in November was inevitable, due to McCain promising more of President Bush's policies and the economic collapse and financial crisis, would McCain-Palin not have lost so badly?

I don't think Sarah Palin would have run for president in 2012, because she probably would have preferred to remain Governor of Alaska and win re-election in 2010. Would she run in 2016?
 
Last edited:
Maybe she would have run for President in 2016 if the run gave her enough name recognition to be high in the polls. As it was, she had like what, 5% in the polls which included her, so she knew the Senate run was a better bet. I don't think she could have beaten Begich without making the pledge that she'd accept no appointment and run for no other office until her term as Senator was done, it was a really close election.
 
McCain missed a massive trick in not picking Palin. Palin's reformist and anti-corruption creds would've massively benefited him.

She would've had the same amount of experience as Spiro Agnew when he was selected in 1968.
 
Eh, tough to say. There is no doubt that the McCain/Pawlenty ticket was the definition of "party of old white guys" republican campaign. But on the other hand Pawlenty was smart and relatively experienced. It was probably the smart idea at the time.
 
McCain missed a massive trick in not picking Palin. Palin's reformist and anti-corruption creds would've massively benefited him.

She would've had the same amount of experience as Spiro Agnew when he was selected in 1968.
Agree with the first point, but not the second.

McCain to his credit always answered honestly when asked about the Keating Five — Yes, he had made mistakes, Yes, he had learned important lessons. But when he started including this in the first two or three minutes of his stumps speeches, much like a seasoned defense attorney being the one to give bad news, Senator McCain started gaining on HRC. Of course, not near enough to overtake her come Nov.

McCain is a knowledgeable, competent, and aggressive overseer of defense contracts and has a reputation for such. Palin's reformist credentials would have helped him make the case that these same traits can be extended to reining in this whole business of "banks too big to fail." Although probably still not enough to beat Clinton.

=======

The second point . . .

Regarding the claim that Gov. Palin had the same experience as Spiro Agnew, in both cases, I would argue, Not enough.

Remember when it first leaked that the McCain campaign was considering Gov. Palin. A lot of people thought it was really neat, including the reaction, Oh, I didn't even know Alaska had a woman governor. And then, there was a brief period when people found out it was just a year and a half and the enthusiasm seemed to drop. And then there was that really confusing and interesting period for the better part of a week where different conservative factions lined up for different candidates, and talk radio at least got some extra listeners for the week. With Pawlenty, Palin, and Romney being the three most oft mentioned candidates. Of course, McCain put a stop to the whole thing making with his big, well-produced public announcement on stage in downtown Saint Paul where Senator and Mrs. McCain were joined on stage by Governor and Mrs. Pawlenty, and John said, "I'd like to introduce you to the next Vice-President of the United States, Governor Tim Pawlenty!"

But if Governor Sarah Palin had been the one ? ? Well, call it a cognitive processing flaw on the part of human beings if you like, but people often focus on the second thing that they learn. In this case, that she had only been governor for a year and a half.
 
Last edited:

Yuelang

Banned
Ironically, having her entered nomination as Vice President nominee might end up butterflying her highly successful 2016 Presidency campaign.

Yeah, I heard that many Democrats derided President Palin as beholden to Donald Trump while Clinton is beholden to Soros... Oh well...
 
As it was, she had like what, 5% in the polls which included her, so she knew the Senate run was a better bet. I don't think she could have beaten Begich without making the pledge that she'd accept no appointment and run for no other office until her term as Senator was done, it was a really close election.
Yes, I think Gov. Palin probably needed to make that full-term pledge in order to beat sitting Senator Mark Begich in 2014.

And as much have we may have liked to see a Clinton and Palin contest in '16 — and Senator Palin has moderated her views over the years from a hard social conservative to a more down-the-line advocate of religious liberty — at age 52, the Senator is still a young woman and who knows what the future holds.


PS I still think it was a great Jedi mind trick for the McCain campaign to "leak" the information that the Senator was considering Palin!
 
Last edited:
I always thought that Tina Fey from SNL looked a lot like Palin. Given the show's liberal stance and the damage Chevy Chase did to the Ford campaign with his portrayals, I could see Fey doing some minor harm with exagerations on Alaska stereotypes (cold weather, gun toting hillbillies I assume). Maybe jokes on being a beauty pageant contestant even.
 
Ironically, having her entered nomination as Vice President nominee might end up butterflying her highly successful 2016 Presidency campaign.
Yes, the 'Draft Sarah' movement in '16 was a lot bigger and more successful than most draft movements, and both its existence and how graciously Sarah turned it down and said, no thank you, have added to her reputation.

And now with have a 2016 presidential election with Senator Obama leading and Governor Christie in close second.

Depending on who wins, Governor Palin could well run in 2020 or '24. Again, she's a young woman.
 
I doubt that Palin would have performed better. Remember- in the general election, as opposed to primaries, it is moderate appeal that counts. Pawlenty had that, at least a little bit. Palin didn't, not even a little bit.

And... it's just a bit condescending to American women to presume that they would vote for a candidate just because she's a woman. My wife, for one, profoundly resents this assumption.
 
I doubt that Palin would have performed better. Remember- in the general election, as opposed to primaries, it is moderate appeal that counts. Pawlenty had that, at least a little bit. Palin didn't, not even a little bit.

McCain had plenty of moderate appeal in 2008. Pawlenty, if anything, added a bit too much.
 
McCain had plenty of moderate appeal in 2008. Pawlenty, if anything, added a bit too much.

I would propose that McCain lost his moderate appeal in 2008. He went a bit radical-right (compared to his historical record) in order to appeal to the Republican base for the primary, but then had to face the general election. So he needed some moderate street cred out of his VP. (That election started out as the Democrats' to lose, given the state of the economy.) So I think that was the right call on his part- it's just that it was still not enough to cinch the win for him because who cares about the VP, anyway, right?

I'm a moderate- right of center on the economy and foreign policy- and I liked McCain. But he lost me in that campaign. And he didn't have to- he won that primary by a huge margin. He could have stuck with his (for contemporary Republicans) moderate track record and almost certainly still have taken it. And let's face it, Clinton took the moderates in that rather close general election, so a more moderate McCain might have won it.

Huh. So, heck, come to think of it, reversing things with a moderate McCain plus the wingnut Palin as VP might have actually done very well, rather than the other way around. That would have required a lot of foresight on McCain's part, though.
 
Last edited:
I don't really like it when the OP of a DBWI lays down so many of the details- I mean for example here its detailed that in (fake)OTL John McCain selected Pawlenty as VP, Hilary was the opposition, and Hillary's VP was Evan Bayh, and that Mc-Cain-Pawlenty lost.

Perhaps this is just a personal things- but I think a lot of the fun of a DBWI is all the posters piecing together the history of the fake OTL. We already know what happened when McCain selected Palin afterall.

Just another nitpick, is this even a DBWI if McCain is running against Hillary instead of Obama? Isn't everything suppose to be the same as OTL except for the detail of the DBWI?

Anyway- to the answer the DBWI:

This is totally ASB, there is no way McCain would have picked Palin- as you said in the OP Palin offered no geographical balance or swing states- sure, she would have appealed to conservatives, but there's no way those conservatives were going to vote for Hillary- Pawlenty's appeal to moderates and independents was far more valuable. Appointing Palin would have been seen as a horse and pony show, and would have been regarded as a joke. If McCain really wanted a female VP he should have gone with Christine Todd Whitman- the former Governor of New Jersey, which would offer appeal to women voters, bring geographical balance, and secure a normally blue state, New Jersey. Other options would have included Kay Hutchinson, Senator of Texas or Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State. Neither of them would secure a swing state, or bring much geographical balance, but they both would have given excellence debates.
 
I don't really like it when the OP of a DBWI lays down so many of the details- I mean for example here its detailed that in (fake)OTL John McCain selected Pawlenty as VP, Hilary was the opposition, and Hillary's VP was Evan Bayh, and that Mc-Cain-Pawlenty lost.

Perhaps this is just a personal things- but I think a lot of the fun of a DBWI is all the posters piecing together the history of the fake OTL. We already know what happened when McCain selected Palin afterall.

Just another nitpick, is this even a DBWI if McCain is running against Hillary instead of Obama? Isn't everything suppose to be the same as OTL except for the detail of the DBWI?
I apologize if you dislike the premise. I meant to play off the widely believed scenario that Sarah Palin gave John McCain an edge against Hillary Clinton. This is often contested on the Alternate History Discussion Board. Evan Bayh is Clinton's vice presidential nominee because they have a close friendship, provides Clinton a lot of advantages, and is the most commonly picked on the Alternate History Discussion Board as Clinton's running mate.
 
I apologize if you dislike the premise. I meant to play off the widely believed scenario that Sarah Palin gave John McCain an edge against Hillary Clinton. This is often contested on the Alternate History Discussion Board. Evan Bayh is Clinton's vice presidential nominee because they have a close friendship, provides Clinton a lot of advantages, and is the most commonly picked on the Alternate History Discussion Board as Clinton's running mate.
No, no, it's a fine premise, and all the choices and things make perfect sense, I just don't know if it's a 'DBWI' technically. But I like the premise.
 
Top