How would a Mccain presidency from 2000 have gone?

If he had beaten GWB in the primaries and defeated Al Gore in the general how would his presidency have gone over that period? This is assuming that 9/11 would still happens (unless some think it wouldn't have?).
 
I'll reuse a post I just wrote on a similar thread:

He may have put greater pressure on the FBI and CIA to get Bin Laden and done more to prepare for an attack. If 9/11 still happens, he invades Afghanistan and focuses like a laser beam on getting Bin Laden. That said, the Iraq War unfortunately still happens. McCain advocated for war even earlier than Bush and he wanted Hussein gone. However, I feel that McCain would have liberated Iraq instead of occupying it as was the original plan. So the Iraqi army would still be intact and Iraq's basic social structures remain in place so the country is left relatively stable at least compared to OTL. He also would never have allowed the CIA to implement torture, for obvious reasons.
No Bush tax cuts, and we could see a cap-and-trade bill that Bush wanted before this was blocked by Cheney. I don't think McCain would have handled Katrina or the economic crisis very differently from Bush based on what I've read. In both cases he was reluctant to take action as it would have required high levels of federal spending and in the latter case interference in the economy. However he would show strong political leadership in both crises, whereas Bush looked like a deer in headlights much of the time.

IMO, it is better for McCain's legacy that he never became President. In OTL he is remembered for his wartime heroics and leadership as a US Senator. Had he been President during this time he would have taken the blame for Iraq, Katrina, and the Great Recession.
 
I'll reuse a post I just wrote on a similar thread:

He may have put greater pressure on the FBI and CIA to get Bin Laden and done more to prepare for an attack. If 9/11 still happens, he invades Afghanistan and focuses like a laser beam on getting Bin Laden. That said, the Iraq War unfortunately still happens. McCain advocated for war even earlier than Bush and he wanted Hussein gone. However, I feel that McCain would have liberated Iraq instead of occupying it as was the original plan. So the Iraqi army would still be intact and Iraq's basic social structures remain in place so the country is left relatively stable at least compared to OTL. He also would never have allowed the CIA to implement torture, for obvious reasons.
No Bush tax cuts, and we could see a cap-and-trade bill that Bush wanted before this was blocked by Cheney. I don't think McCain would have handled Katrina or the economic crisis very differently from Bush based on what I've read. In both cases he was reluctant to take action as it would have required high levels of federal spending and in the latter case interference in the economy. However he would show strong political leadership in both crises, whereas Bush looked like a deer in headlights much of the time.

IMO, it is better for McCain's legacy that he never became President. In OTL he is remembered for his wartime heroics and leadership as a US Senator. Had he been President during this time he would have taken the blame for Iraq, Katrina, and the Great Recession.

I will say that even GWB has seen somewhat of a rehabilitation of his character if not his legacy in the last little bit.

I don't think the tributes we are seeing now for Mccain would be that drastically different if his presidency went as you described.
 
McCain was skeptical of the Bush tax cuts on deficit grounds I believe. He might pursue tax cuts, but they'd be smaller and more deficit-minded.

When McCain goes to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and I believe he'd invade Iraq) he'd likely send a lot more troops than Bush did. You wouldn't see Rumsfeld's skeleton operation happening.

McCain might handle Iran differently. Historically they assisted the US it its attempt to overthrow the Taliban government of Afghanistan - the axis of evil speech really took them by surprise.

Lieberman likely won't be Gore's running mate against McCain. Kerry was Gore's second choice historically, so I could see him getting the nod.

Who is McCain's running mate? Likely somebody more conservative than himself who doesn't put off suburban moderates. Fred Thompson does the job and turns Tennessee into another front to campaign in. Otherwise, Liz Dole maybe? John Kasich the fiscal hawk from a swing state could work too perhaps.




Cap and trade, immigration reform, a more modest tax cut, and an emphasis on foreign policy (and one a bit more competent that Dubya's despite being more hawkish) would be the defining achievements of a McCain administration. I don't think we'd see efforts at Social Security reform or education reform.
 
I'm not convinced that President McCain will invade Iraq. He will not necessarily have the same advisors as GWB, some but not all and McCain will probably also be harder to sway. If nothing else he will ask tougher questions and demand concrete answers. It's possible he still goes through with it (it's possible Gore would have too) but definitely not a guarantee.
 
I'm not convinced that President McCain will invade Iraq. He will not necessarily have the same advisors as GWB, some but not all and McCain will probably also be harder to sway. If nothing else he will ask tougher questions and demand concrete answers. It's possible he still goes through with it (it's possible Gore would have too) but definitely not a guarantee.

If McCain goes in, removes Saddam, but leaves the fundamental structure of the regime, Iraqi military, and broader society intact then the war might be seen positively.

If you have an Iraq War that goes well and McCain uses the Afghan War as an opportunity to improve relations with Iran, McCain would leave a very strong foreign policy legacy.
 
Last edited:
If McCain goes in, removes Saddam, but leaves the fundamental structure of the regime, Iraqi military, and broader society intact then the war might be seen positively.

If you have an Iraq War that goes well and McCain uses the Afghan War as an opportunity to improve relations with Iran, McCain would leave a very strong foreign policy legacy.

Although if he still bases the war on a lie and the UN considers him in violation of international law, that would damage his reputation.
 
Side note about the economy:

The economy will hurt McCain, but the economic downturn might not be as bad without the deep tax cuts and bloated military budgets of the Bush years. Huge deficits necessitated money printing and low interest rates which fed speculation and resulted in a bigger bubble when things went kaput.

Plus there's no reason to assume the SEC would still allow broker-dealers to double their leverage in 2004 TTL. It was kind of a weird rule change - they increased the amount of allowed leverage but the SEC also brought the entire regulatory structure of the big brokerage firms under their purview for the first time. They had to report to regulators using the Basel II risk-weighted asset approach (as used by the FDIC, Fed, and other government entities) which had a built-in mortgage bias that was intended to encourage banks to acquire mortgage-related assets.

The housing bubble was bound to happen eventually, but without the SEC rule change and deficit-induced low interest rates of the Bush administration, it might not be as big or even happen at the same point as it did historically.
 
Who is McCain's running mate? Likely somebody more conservative than himself who doesn't put off suburban moderates. Fred Thompson does the job and turns Tennessee into another front to campaign in. Otherwise, Liz Dole maybe? John Kasich the fiscal hawk from a swing state could work too perhaps.

Michigan Governor John Engler would be a plausible running mate. He could make the upper Midwest more competitive for the GOP ticket.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge would also be an option - in OTL he was supposedly on McCain's VP shortlist in 2008. The main problem with Ridge is that he's pro-choice, which would upset the religious right (who would already be lukewarm about 2000 McCain, especially given his denunciation of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance").
 
Michigan Governor John Engler would be a plausible running mate. He could make the upper Midwest more competitive for the GOP ticket.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge would also be an option - in OTL he was supposedly on McCain's VP shortlist in 2008. The main problem with Ridge is that he's pro-choice, which would upset the religious right (who would already be lukewarm about 2000 McCain, especially given his denunciation of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance").

Ridge could perhaps put Pennsylvania in play, but he'd also make things tougher elsewhere where the GOP is evangelical-dependent.

I'd expect a red Pennsylvania and a blue Tennessee if he picks Ridge. Buchanan's Reform Party bid probably goes a bit better here too. West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Missouri could all go blue as well without W's cultural populism. Ohio was also pretty close historically and the appalachian bits staying blue could perhaps seal the deal, although McCain could feasibly make gains in suburbia.

However, McCain will play a lot stronger in suburbia and with independents. I think he wins Oregon and Wisconsin here. Florida will be safe for McCain as well, I think.
 
Last edited:
However, McCain will play a lot stronger in suburbia and with independents. I think he wins Oregon and Wisconsin here. Florida will be safe for McCain as well, I think.

In such a TL, McCain wins decisively and unlike Dubya there aren't questions about his legitimacy. I wonder how Gore would be viewed in this universe. For a while he gained a lot of sympathy as someone who was cheated out of the Presidency, but here the blame would all be on him for losing in 2000.
 

bguy

Donor
In such a TL, McCain wins decisively and unlike Dubya there aren't questions about his legitimacy. I wonder how Gore would be viewed in this universe. For a while he gained a lot of sympathy as someone who was cheated out of the Presidency, but here the blame would all be on him for losing in 2000.

I've never really understood why people think McCain would have been a stronger candidate than Bush in 2000. From what we saw of McCain's 2008 campaign, his campaign organization was horribly disorganized (witness their almost complete lack of vetting of Palin), and McCain's own campaign instincts were pretty poor. (Just consider him wanting to make Lieberman his veep or the bizarre decision to suspend his campaign and try to postpone one of the presidential debates.) Add in the fact that the 2000 election is going to be a domestic policy election (McCain's weakest area), and it's difficult to imagine McCain beating Gore in 2000.
 
I've never really understood why people think McCain would have been a stronger candidate than Bush in 2000. From what we saw of McCain's 2008 campaign, his campaign organization was horribly disorganized (witness their almost complete lack of vetting of Palin), and McCain's own campaign instincts were pretty poor. (Just consider him wanting to make Lieberman his veep or the bizarre decision to suspend his campaign and try to postpone one of the presidential debates.) Add in the fact that the 2000 election is going to be a domestic policy election (McCain's weakest area), and it's difficult to imagine McCain beating Gore in 2000.

Bush consistently lead Gore throughout the year except for August before coming back in October. McCain would probably be able to hold down that lead, since unlike Dubya he wouldn't make ridiculous gaffes and neither would a DUI scandal leak before election day. Also the bad decisions McCain made were the result of trying to steal Obama's thunder by picking a female VP and the economic crisis. Take out both factors and McCain would have run a superior campaign.
 
Top