What would the Republicans have done? Could this affected the outcome of the election?
Ehhh and No, not the overall result.
But what I imagine would have happened (and to make this less morbid, how about this is WI Sarah Palin had bowed out at the vetting stage to gain more experience) is needing a shocking pick to kill the bump from the DNC, John McCain convinces the independent Lieberman to run with him.
Far-fetched? Maybe, and yes, the right would have gone bonkers but lets be honest, if he takes Romney, Pawlenty, or even Thompson or Giuliani, he has nothing interesting and likely gets steamrolled straight from the end of the DNC until Nov. 4. The only conservative pick near the magnitude of Palin that McCain could make was Jindal, and at the end of the day, I think you have the same exact story with Jindal as Palin- neither was/is ready for the limelight at the moment.
Lieberman hurts the Obama "bipartisan change" campaign and allows McCain to continue trumpeting Obama's inexperience.
But at the end of the day, is that enough a) for the conservatives to support in droves a guy that was getting a lukewarm reception from them taking a guy even further to the left and b) for the independents who are enraptured with Obama to switch to the moderate Republican with the moderate Democrat in everything but name ticket?
Even if we throw away a because Obama's policies drive the conservatives out in droves for McCain, I still think b is a no. And I'm not convinced a can be thrown away that easily.
So closer or not, McCain still loses. And at the end of the day, that's not AH, because he still loses. A more fun WI would be "WI New Hampshire didn't have open primaries?" or "WI Huckabee had lost to Romney in Iowa?" or "WI Giuliani hadn't decided to live and die by the Florida primary?"
The answer to at least two of those is probably McCain doesn't win the nomination, which means there's more of a chance of the White House race changing. Simply because a Romney or a Huckabee had the chance of moving to the center and not needing to secure the base, and thus, battling for the independents Obama took. McCain had to move the opposite direction and leave the centrists for the base, which cost him both time and the centrists. End result, a big L.
Of course, the Republicans were also hurt by, to name a few, poor organization of their campaign, an unpopular sitting president, an opponent that was both grassroots and Internet savvy, a failing economy, brand damage, and the wars not being as big of an issue to people as in 2004, not to mention a charismatic opponent with a compelling life story. So the GOP was in it deep anyway, and it's certainly possible no combination of President-VP was winning that election.
But as an interesting twist to the WI Palin rejects the vetting process I'm working with, I think come 2012 in a challenge to Obama, or in 2016, she becomes a much more formidable opponent, probably again in a VP role at first. Instead, her brand is damaged for many centrists and most likely, the most we'll see from her are a couple of failed runs for President, maybe a successful election to become a Senator from Alaska. Which is a shame, really, if your a GOP fan at home, that one of your prospects was thrown to the wolves in an election where you were almost guaranteed to lose anyway. McCain taking a Lieberman or a Giuliani or a Thompson does no real harm to the overall end of the party.
The only thing, by the by, that I see changing from the WI you proposed, is that there might be less of a backlash against conservatives in the Republican party, simply because people wouldn't be blaming Palin and her conservatism for the loss. So I think the only actual result to not picking her would have been a strengthening for the future of the GOP, instead of the current civil war occurring in the party.