McCain wins in 2000

samcster94

Banned
In 2000, had the Electoral College results had been slightly different in Florida, would have been an unmemorable, but close election. What if McCain had been the nominee instead of W??? I can imagine his campaign taking a different direction in 2000, and possibly a bit less religious(relative to OTL W). I do think he'd pick a more competent VP without a huge ego(he'd stay away from someone like Gingrich). I also imagine the actual victory might be small, but unambiguous. I think the Reps might win an extra Senate seat if a close race like Minnesota or Missouri(where the man was dead) goes differently.
To prevent a cliche, this thread is not for an alt 9/11, it ONLY deals with the events up to January 20th, 2001(although policies in early month can be discussed).
 
March 6th, 2000
The release of information that Republican Presidential candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush, was given a DUI in the 1970s makes national news. With the information being released so close to Super Tuesday, it could prove to be detrimental to Bush's Presidential campaign.

March 7th, 2000
Moderate Republicans are alienated from Bush due to his DUI, and turn out to vote for the other frontrunner; Arizona Senator John McCain. This causes McCain to win narrowly in California, Maine, and New York; while winning landslides in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; where he is popular amongst Rockefeller Republicans. Bush still carries Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Washington. After the results are in, former HUD Secretary and Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp retracts his endorsement of Bush, and instead endorses McCain.

(( OOC: I tried to present a possible POD, but this might not be very good, it's my first time trying to actually write alternate history. Feel free to critique as necessary. ))
 

samcster94

Banned
March 6th, 2000
The release of information that Republican Presidential candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush, was given a DUI in the 1970s makes national news. With the information being released so close to Super Tuesday, it could prove to be detrimental to Bush's Presidential campaign.

March 7th, 2000
Moderate Republicans are alienated from Bush due to his DUI, and turn out to vote for the other frontrunner; Arizona Senator John McCain. This causes McCain to win narrowly in California, Maine, and New York; while winning landslides in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; where he is popular amongst Rockefeller Republicans. Bush still carries Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Washington. After the results are in, former HUD Secretary and Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp retracts his endorsement of Bush, and instead endorses McCain.

(( OOC: I tried to present a possible POD, but this might not be very good, it's my first time trying to actually write alternate history. Feel free to critique as necessary. ))
I think an earlier POD might work better, like have W do more poorly in Iowa{as some other candidate like Forbes or Keyes does better}, have the DUI stuff come out then, and compound it with a backlash Bob Jones University. By March of 2000, W's campaign is dead in the water and he drops out then.
 
I think an earlier POD might work better, like have W do more poorly in Iowa{as some other candidate like Forbes or Keyes does better}, have the DUI stuff come out then, and compound it with a backlash Bob Jones University. By March of 2000, W's campaign is dead in the water and he drops out then.
If anyone could do better, it would most likely be Forbes. He's rich, he could've had money behind him.
 
March 7th, 2000
. . . McCain to win narrowly in California, Maine, and New York; while winning landslides in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; where he is popular amongst Rockefeller Republicans. Bush still carries Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Washington. After the results are in, former HUD Secretary and Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp retracts his endorsement of Bush, and instead endorses McCain. . .
I might slightly tweak this POD so that . . . either Jack has not yet given a formal endorsement to any major candidate. Or, wait till McCain wins a few more big primaries the over following couple of weeks and takes a strong, almost commanding, lead over Bush, and then Jack's switch in endorsement starts the establishment rush and stampede toward McCain.
 
In 2000, a friend of mine's dad was active in the Democratic Party and was good friends (former law school roommate of a senator) and he said that early in the Republican primary when McCain was making a lot of noise, the Democrats were really nervous that he would win the nomination because they considered him a much tougher opponent than Bush.
 
Keep in mind that Bush in 2000 was very successful at peeling away '92 and/or '96 Clinton states that leaned conservative on cultural and social issues, like Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia.

McCain might not have been able to manage that. Al Gore was a centrist Democrat who had appeal in those areas and could have done better had he not faced someone who mobilized turnout from Born-Again and Baptist Christians like George Bush was able to with his personal story and faith conviction.

I can imagine, even, that Gore could use his wife Tipper's status as a crusader against obscenity to position himself against McCain's history of a somewhat scandalous divorce and try to paint himself as the one who was more moral.

Also, I don't think John McCain had the affinity with Latino voters that played so well for Bush in Florida in OTL, nor would he have the unequivocal support of Governor Jeb Bush. Not sure if Florida would go for him. Florida was a '96 Clinton state as well, I think. Bush had to reach to get Florida, considering that Gore had the Jewish Lieberman on his ticket and the state had a high opinion of Bill Clinton; McCain would not have those advantages.

It is also quite possible that McCain's social conservatism could have been questioned enough to the point that Pat Buchanan would peel off a lot more votes than OTL.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that Bush in 2000 was very successful at peeling away '92 and/or '96 Clinton states that leaned conservative on cultural and social issues, like Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Georgia.

McCain might not have been able to manage that. Al Gore was a centrist Democrat who had appeal in those areas and could have done better had he not faced someone who mobilized turnout from Born-Again and Baptist Christians like George Bush was able to with his personal story and faith conviction.

I can imagine, even, that Gore could use his wife Tipper's status as a crusader against obscenity to position himself against McCain's history of a somewhat scandalous divorce and try to paint himself as the one who was more moral.

Also, I don't think John McCain had the affinity with Latino voters that played so well for Bush in Florida in OTL, nor would he have the unequivocal support of Governor Jeb Bush. Not sure if Florida would go for him. Florida was a '96 Clinton state as well, I think. Bush had to reach to get Florida, considering that Gore had the Jewish Lieberman on his ticket and the state had a high opinion of Bill Clinton; McCain would not have those advantages.

It is also quite possible that McCain's social conservatism could have been questioned enough to the point that Pat Buchanan would peel off a lot more votes than OTL.

The Republican base HATED Bill Clinton with a passion though. I don't think they'd give him a third term in the form of President Gore by sitting the election out or voting Buchanan simply because McCain wasn't ideologically pure enough for them.
 
The Republican base HATED Bill Clinton with a passion though. I don't think they'd give him a third term in the form of President Gore by sitting the election out or voting Buchanan simply because McCain wasn't ideologically pure enough for them.
At aggregate level, sure. That doesn't mean a few holdouts wouldn't switch over.

But the bigger issue for McCain is in getting people who voted for Clinton in '96 in the South to crossover. Bush was able to do so because he spoke their language and was able to reframe angry Gingrichism into compassionate conservativism. McCain lacked that rhetorical polish and would really come across as another Bob Dole, someone wishy washy on questions of the state and its role and way too fixated on issues like the legislative process or electoral reform, which nobody cared about, and someone who could not make a definitive case of shared values with voters who went with Clinton but were sympathetic to conservatism, like Hispanic voters and socially conservative southerners who perhaps did not share enthusiasm for entitlement reform.
 
At aggregate level, sure. That doesn't mean a few holdouts wouldn't switch over.

But the bigger issue for McCain is in getting people who voted for Clinton in '96 in the South to crossover. Bush was able to do so because he spoke their language and was able to reframe angry Gingrichism into compassionate conservativism. McCain lacked that rhetorical polish and would really come across as another Bob Dole, someone wishy washy on questions of the state and its role and way too fixated on issues like the legislative process or electoral reform, which nobody cared about, and someone who could not make a definitive case of shared values with voters who went with Clinton but were sympathetic to conservatism, like Hispanic voters and socially conservative southerners who perhaps did not share enthusiasm for entitlement reform.
McCain could win even if some of the Clinton/Gore states of the south stay Democratic, although Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri, a boarder state, are the only ones I can see staying with Gore, and Missouri would be competitive if anyone other than Gephardt was on the ticket. West Virginia is going Republican even with McCain at the top of the ticket over Kyoto and the rest of the Clinton/Gore 92/96 states in the south (Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana) were arguably only won due to Perot, and Pat Buchanan is no Ross Perot. McCain was also at his peak maverickness at the time, so he could make up for lost ground in the south in other regions of the country. Here's a plausible scenario for a McCain victory over Gore in 2000:

genusmap.php
 
In OTL, George W. Bush's vice presidential shortlist included Tom Ridge, John Danforth, and George Pataki. Ridge and Pataki might be considered "too liberal" by the Republican base, which hurts more due to McCain already being a moderate. Some other choices McCain might consider include:
  • John Engler
  • Bill Frist
  • Chuck Hagel
  • John Kasich
  • Frank Keating
  • Connie Mack III (Might be helpful in swinging Florida if Jeb Bush does not show him the same love he gave his brother)
  • Colin Powell
  • Fred Thompson
Whether McCain wins re-election in 2004 is debatable, but I doubt he would invade Iraq as OTL. If McCain is able to win re-election in 2004, Fred Thompson might be an interesting choice because as vice president, Thompson would run in 2008 to further McCain's legacy (although he probably wouldn't win).
 
Last edited:
How would a President McCain be in 2000 though? I mean, Bush had the support of the neocon agenda so would McCain be able to keep things more in control (such as keeping things contained in Afghanistan and not just invade Iraq?)
 
. . . It is also quite possible that McCain's social conservatism could have been questioned enough to the point that Pat Buchanan would peel off a lot more votes than OTL.
That would certainly seem logical, that Pat would peel off the more conservative voters, and Ralph Nader would peel off the more liberal voters. But per a political science study which looked at electronic snapshots of actual ballots cast and looked at the actual down-ballot voting . . .

No, such is not the case.

This study concluded that both Pat and Ralph voters split 60-40, or even closer. [of course in a razor thin Florida, this was enough to make a difference because there were more Ralph voters]

The two authors said people who vote third party vary by something other than the traditional liberal-conservative spectrum. I personally would guess that it's a pissed-off component, but that's just my guess.

PDF --> http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf
 
Last edited:
From my perspective, George W. ran for election from the center but then appointed from the right. For example, he appointed John Ashcroft to be attorney general.
 
In OTL, George W. Bush's vice presidential shortlist included Tom Ridge, John Danforth, and George Pataki. Ridge and Pataki might be considered "too liberal" by the Republican base, which hurts more due to McCain already being a moderate. Some other choices McCain might consider include:
  • John Engler
  • Bill Frist
  • Chuck Hagel
  • John Kasich
  • Frank Keating
  • Connie Mack III (Might be helpful in swinging Florida if Jeb Bush does not show him the same love he gave his brother)
  • Colin Powell
  • Fred Thompson
Whether McCain wins re-election in 2004 is debatable, but I doubt he would invade Iraq as OTL. If McCain is able to win re-election in 2004, Fred Thompson might be an interesting choice because as vice president, Thompson would run in 2008 to further McCain's legacy (although he probably wouldn't win).


Powell would be a bad choice to unite the party, even if he'd be a popular choice with the general electorate. Engler has rather faded into obscurity, but he'd bring regional balance at least. Frist is too bland. Kasich is too much like McCain ideologically, as is Hagel (minus foreign policy). Keating would be decent as a leader of a state that suffered a major tragedy, and given that the state is Oklahoma he's presumably on the conservative wing of the party so he could bring unity. Not sure about Mack other than bringing a Florida boost. But Fred Thompson seems like the best choice. A friend of McCain, a fairly mainstream Republican who was always liked by the conservative base. He didn't like campaigning much, but that would be less of an issue as a VP pick. Both however suffered from serious health issues in the 2000s so that might become an issue as time goes on.
 
Top