McCain vs Clinton in 2008?

If Hilary had won the 2008 democratic primaries (she was the heavy favorite until Obama caught fire), and ended up facing McCain in the general election how would things have gone?
 
If Hilary had won the 2008 democratic primaries (she was the heavy favorite until Obama caught fire), and ended up facing McCain in the general election how would things have gone?
Probably a little worse than OTL Obama but still a fairly convincing win.

Clinton lacks Obama's lightning in a bottle charisma, his 'newness' appeal and would probably stir up the Republican base more who have years of hating her.

Offsetting all that is the sheer weakness of the Republican position in 2008. It is very, very hard to see how the GOP could win even against a weak Democrat candidate.
 
G. W. had a 20% approval rating leading up to the election, so I think it's nearly impossible for McCain to win. Hillary lacks Obama's charisma and can't really make the same 'Hope' and 'Change' message Obama had, so she does worse overall, but still wins. My guess is North Carolina and Indiana still vote R, maybe Virginia and Florida as well, but that's about it.
 
HRC probably wins Arkansas and Missouri but likely loses North Carolina. Black turnout will be weaker but HRC will do better with poor and working class culturally conservative whites. Obama did very well in Chicagoland and that brought Indiana over, but I could see HRC taking it too due to stronger

McCain probably feels less need for a "change" running mate if he isn't going against Obama. Odds are Lieberman or Pawlenty is the running mate.

Clinton will still win, but it won't be as commanding a win.

Senate races might be impacted. Alaska and Minnesota were very close and I can see both going the other way if independents lean more towards McCain and proceed to vote Republican downballot. You certainly wouldn't see as many Democrats voting downballot.
 
Last edited:
What we should not forget is that Obama's impetus came because John Edwards took the union vote and made the race in Iowa three-way instead of two-way. Without Edwards, Hillary would have taken Iowa by a 2:1 margin over Obama. I lived in Iowa City in early 2008. The Clinton signs said "President" while the Obama signs said "Obama '08," a clear indicator he would take the VP position.
 
With the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, the Democrats are going to win with either Obama or HRC. In fact, exit polls in November 2008 showed that HRC would have done better against McCain than Obama did. "52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama's 7-point margin over McCain." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-those-clinton-mccain-crossover-voters/ Such polls of course cannot be taken at face value. For in the past few months before the poll, nobody had attacked HRC at all--the Democrats of course wanted to be sure her supporters would back Obama, while the Republicans wanted to attract her supporters to McCain. HRC as an actual candidate would have had to undergo many more attacks. Still, she would almost certainly have won, and no, 2016 does not prove anything to the contrary--the situations were totally different. (For one thing, in 2016, it was the Democrats who had to defend eight years in the White House--something that it has been hard for any party to do in the postwar era except in 1988.)
 
Clinton would win over in 2008, but I am not sure how well she would do in 2012. Obama could probably beat her in 2012 if he was more radical in his message, but I doubt the DNC would wanna shove off Clinton like that. Not sure who can run against Clinton except maybe Romney in 2012.

2016 could probably see someone like Rubio run against Obama
 
Clinton wins barring craziness, but because she’s certain to win…

What happens if she doesn’t have 60 Senate seats? Things could go real bad given OTL Republican obstruct everything plans.
 
Last edited:
Clinton wins barring craziness, but because she’s certain to win…

What happens if she doesn’t have 60 Senate seats? Things could go real bad given OTL Republican obstruct everything plans.
They could also go better. Many Republicans were very bitter after the first stimulus as passed without any Republican input and for them that set the tone for much of the first few years. From their POV - If Republicans weren't going to be included, why bother to be constructive?
HRC also remembered the shortcomings of 90s healthcare reform efforts and would perhaps be more cautious.
 
I can't stand Hillary, having said this she would have chewed McCain up and spat out the pieces. It would have been a bar brawl as opposed to what was a very smooth and convincing victory by Obama.
 
Many Republicans were very bitter after the first stimulus as passed without any Republican input and for them that set the tone for much of the first few years. From their POV - If Republicans weren't going to be included, why bother to be constructive?
We know what happened. Republicans decided on 100% obstruction. The stimulus bill was just one of many excuses. It’s possible they adopt a different strategy, but it seems unlikely.

So if Clinton is short of 60 seats nothing is getting done outside of budget reconciliation unless the filibuster is killed. Or maybe she brings back earmarks to entice Republicans? Won’t be enough for healthcare but some kind of jobs bill might pass. Auto bailout might not though, yikes.

No healthcare and the economy even marginally worse in 2012 does set up Romney way better than OTL though—I think he wins.
 
Last edited:
Clinton would almost certainly have picked Obama as her VP, so her campaign would be able to tap into his charisma and messaging to a certain degree.
 
We know what happened. Republicans decided on 100% obstruction. The stimulus bill was just one of many excuses. It’s possible they adopt a different strategy, but it seems unlikely.

So if Clinton is short of 60 seats nothing is getting done outside of budget reconciliation unless the filibuster is killed. Or maybe she brings back earmarks to entice Republicans? Won’t be enough for healthcare but some kind of jobs bill might pass. Auto bailout might not though, yikes.

No healthcare and the economy even marginally worse in 2012 does set up Romney way better than OTL though—I think he wins.
Yeah though Clinton could blame the GOP being obstructionists on that and it wouldn't take them long for them to screw up whatever meager economic recovery Clinton would gain through tax cuts. And the auto bailout would be a goddang bomb for them
 
Clinton would almost certainly have picked Obama as her VP, so her campaign would be able to tap into his charisma and messaging to a certain degree.
That could lead to an awkward situation where the VP candidate is more appealing than the Presidential nominee.
 
Clinton would almost certainly have picked Obama as her VP, so her campaign would be able to tap into his charisma and messaging to a certain degree.
I disagree. There was bad blood between Obama and the Clinton's from the primaries. She might have selected him for a cabinet position when/if elected but I don't think she would have ran with him.

Similar to how Obama didn't select her to be his VP.
 
I am thinking McCain likely picks an African-American as VP, especially since Obama is likely to get the Dem VP slot unless Hillary's instincts are even worse then we realize, which is possible. My guess, either Condi Rice or JC Watts.

Its an uphill climb, but if any Dem can lose in 2008, it's Pantsuit Dukakis herself. For one, she isn't going to flip North Carolina, Virginia or Indiana like Obama did.
 
I think Clinton would've won Missouri and Georgia, would have made the GOP sweat in Mississippi, South Carolina and Arkansas but she would've lost Indiana.
 
Despite 2008 being a much more Democratic year than 2004, there were still noticeable swings in particular regions that had gone heavily for Clinton in the primary. It isn't hard to say that Clinton could nullify or at least reduce some of those swings, which helps her in the South for the general.



So for example, Louisiana might be vulnerable to a swing. Really says something that Republicans got a swing Towards them, after Bush's bungling of Katrina, just because Democrats picked a black man as their nominee. And Democrats weren't exactly coming off a high point in 2004 in regards to the South. Kerry being a Massachusetts Liberal, running alongside multiple anti-gay statewide ballots that brought out the evangelicals. Democrats were sliding every election cycle in regards to the South. Clinton won some of them, Gore didn't but came close, Kerry lost even more ground, and then Obama bottomed out with white voters in the Deep South while energising Black turnout.

In terms of the Senate, Clinton/Obama could possibly swing Georgia, Kentucky and the Mississippi Special, in about that order.
 
Last edited:
. . . Many Republicans were very bitter after the first stimulus as passed without any Republican input . . .
Congress passed two stimulus bills, one in early Oct. ‘08 signed by Pres. Bush, and one in Feb. ‘09 signed by Pres. Obama.

Yes, stimulus is somewhat of a tough sale.

What the American public really wanted to bring down the Hammer of God upon Wall Street. Such as using Sherman Anti-Trust in very orderly and lawful way to break up Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and the other big boy banks, without a lot of mess and fuss and allowing yourself to be talked into complicated exceptions.

A good leader will not allow herself, or himself, to get gray-area-ed. They will be told, Oh, we’ve got to have big banks because the UK and Germany does. To which she says, that’s fine, we’re going to have smaller banks. And when need be, they can get together in joint projects in an open, above-board, and transparent way.

That is, breaking up the big banks is both good policy — and good politics. It is in my universe! :p
 
Last edited:
Top