So, how well would John McCain have done in 2000?

Exactly what it says on the tin. Despite his disastrous 2008 campaign for the presidency, back in 2000, McCain was perceived quite differently. In fact, polls from his primary campaign showed him defeating Al Gore in many states, including California, Illinois, and Vermont, doing substantially better than his nomination rival, George W. Bush. It's been theorized that McCain could have taken the Perot voters as well as the Republican base, winning in a substantial landslide.

But what's everyone else's take on matters? Could these numbers have held up until election day? Assuming John McCain wins the Republican nomination in 2000, how does his campaign go? Who becomes his running mate? And how well does he do in November that year?

(I assume one side-effect would be Joe Lieberman declining Gore's offer to join the Democratic ticket, not wanting to campaign, against McCain, a friend of his.)
 
Exactly what it says on the tin. Despite his disastrous 2008 campaign for the presidency, back in 2000, McCain was perceived quite differently. In fact, polls from his primary campaign showed him defeating Al Gore in many states, including California, Illinois, and Vermont, doing substantially better than his nomination rival, George W. Bush. It's been theorized that McCain could have taken the Perot voters as well as the Republican base, winning in a substantial landslide.

But what's everyone else's take on matters? Could these numbers have held up until election day? Assuming John McCain wins the Republican nomination in 2000, how does his campaign go? Who becomes his running mate? And how well does he do in November that year?

(I assume one side-effect would be Joe Lieberman declining Gore's offer to join the Democratic ticket, not wanting to campaign, against McCain, a friend of his.)

I'm confused. Are you asking how well McCain would have done if he beat Bush in the Republican Primary in 2000 or if he could have done better in 2008 against Obama?
 
McCain would beat Gore and this time, there wouldn't be questions about it. His actual presidency, unfortunately, might not look too different from that of George Bush.
 
It's probably meant to be "So, how well would John McCain have done in 2000?".
I think he'd have lost to Gore. Despite the fact that he is probably more experienced, he'd lose the support of a significant fraction of the base due to his moderatism, as well as the support of the people who supported GWB due to his father.
Edit: Ninja'd.
 
I see this as McCain's best-case scenario, using Bush '88's popular vote as a template:
2000McCain53.4%.png

There's less turnout among conservatives, and the lack of Lieberman hurts Nader, but McCain's popularity gives him a cushy margin.

2000McCain53.4%.png
 
Bush was considered more likely to beat Gore before his drunk driving scandal, people were actually talking about the possibility of Bush winning the popular vote and Gore winning the electoral college.

McCain actually knew about Bush's drunk driving but refused to release it.

If McCain takes down Bush in the primaries, I'd imagine he'd get the same kind of momentum Obama got in 2008 after he beat Clinton in the primaries.
 
McCain would win easily. He may have the Keating Five around his neck, but he truly regrets it, and wants to change things for the better. Gore would have his own fundraising scandals around his neck. McCain would beat Gore like a drum, and likely with fewer Florida shenanigans. (In addition, after what happened in SC, he might reform other things besides Campaign finances.)
We could see a lot fewer changes to voting laws with McCain in the WH. Taxes would be higher, giving lower deficits. Then again, McCain would likely have gone into Iraq even if they found no WMD. And Iran. And North Korea. And Georgia and Russia in 2008. God help us all.

I need to return to my old McCain wins TL.
 
Those who think McCain's moderation hurts him in 2000 forgets that Bush campaigned as a moderate, "compassionate conservative."

The red west gets redder, the red south gets a little bluer maybe but not much. Not enough to flip any states. Florida's a big if but I have to believe McCain's platform is more appealing to the elderly than Bush's.
 

bguy

Donor
McCain would win easily. He may have the Keating Five around his neck, but he truly regrets it, and wants to change things for the better. Gore would have his own fundraising scandals around his neck. McCain would beat Gore like a drum, and likely with fewer Florida shenanigans.

I'm not sure why everyone is so convinced McCain would do better than Bush. Based on McCain's 2008 performance, he was a pretty inept candidate. He combined daffy political instincts (thinking he could ram Joe Lieberman as his Veep down the GOP base's throat and that bizarre lets cancel the debate strategem) with horrendous organization (I actually like Sarah Palin and think she was ultimately a net plus for the McCain campaign, but even I think the process they used to select her was astonishingly amatuerish). Nor is McCain exactly an inspiring speaker or strong debater. And the area where he is the strongest (foreign policy) is a complete non-factor in the 2000 election since that election turned entirely on domestic policy issues, most of which McCain has little interest in or ability to express himself on (watching McCain try to discuss health care policy was almost physically painful in 2008. I doubt he will be any better at it in 2000.)

It's also very possible that the Bush family (which has a lot of pull throughout the GOP establishment at this time, especially with the big money donors that McCain would need) will be working to quietly undercut McCain's campaign. (Since if McCain loses then that pretty well clears the decks for either George or Jeb to run and most likely win in 2004.)
 
I'm not sure why everyone is so convinced McCain would do better than Bush.

Largely because in matchup polling with Gore, McCain beat Gore by a very substantial margin - much more substantial than the lead Bush held in the same polls. McCain had the potential to be a very potent candidate in 2000, and even if those sorts of leads don't hold, I suspect he would have won rather more comfortably than Bush did. Gore ran a remarkably poor campaign, and like Obama in 2008, McCain in 2000 was the ideal candidate for the political zeitgeist. McCain's campaign would have to crash and burn beyond what happened in 2008 for him to lose, and on balance it's more likely that he not only wins but wins comfortably.
 
Last edited:

bguy

Donor
Largely because in matchup polling with Gore, McCain beat Gore by a very substantial margin - much more substantial than the lead Bush held in the same polls. McCain had the potential to be a very potent candidate in 2000, and even if those sorts of leads don't hold, I suspect he would have won rather more comfortably than Bush did. Gore ran a remarkably poor campaign, and like Obama in 2008, McCain in 2000 was the ideal candidate for the political zeitgeist. McCain's campaign would have to crash and burn beyond what happened in 2008 for him to lose, and on balance it's more likely that he not only wins but wins comfortably.

I wouldn't put too much stock in early polls though as they are largely meaningless. (Heck, Dukakis had a 17 point lead over H.W. Bush as late as July in the '88 election and still managed to blow it.)

I agree that Gore ran a really bad campaign. Still, it is possible that with McCain as his opponent rather than Bush, he avoids a number of mistakes that he made in the OTL campaign. I don't think Gore would be so worried about running away from Clinton with McCain as his opponent (McCain could hardly go on about "restoring decency to the Oval Office" given his own history of infidelity), so Gore might actually use Clinton effectively here. And even if Gore does still sideline Clinton, I don't see him feeling the need for the anti-Clinton as his veep, so he probably doesn't select Lieberman for that position. Almost any other credible veep choice is bound to improve Gore's chances. (Bill Nelson for instance probably delivers Florida. Richard Gephardt might deliver Missouri and may even help with West Virginia, etc.) Nor do I see Gore acting as disrespectful to a war hero like McCain as he did towards Bush in the first debate, which will help Gore avoid a ton of bad press and lost momentum. Gore might still manage to blow it, but given how close he kept it against the much more personable Bush, I think he probably ultimately manages to defeat McCain.
 
I wouldn't put too much stock in early polls though as they are largely meaningless. (Heck, Dukakis had a 17 point lead over H.W. Bush as late as July in the '88 election and still managed to blow it.)

It is true we should be cautious, but equally, you can hardly dismiss the fact that McCain had the potential to poll very strongly completely out of hand. It certainly doesn't prove the notion that he would have been weaker than Bush. McCain proved he could win the votes of Democrats and independents in the open primaries, so the notion that he couldn't take that ability into the future is spurious.

Still, it is possible that with McCain as his opponent rather than Bush, he avoids a number of mistakes that he made in the OTL campaign.

Unlikely. Most were independent of the Bush campaign.

I don't think Gore would be so worried about running away from Clinton with McCain as his opponent

Yes, yes he would. Leaving aside the notion that Clinton more prominently deployed would have been a net plus for Gore, which is accepted folk wisdom now but is unfortunately wrong, McCain and his message would have fitted in very well with the national mood of change at that point; it's why he attracted so many Democrats and independents in the primaries. McCain might not have been as successful an agent of 'moral' change but he would certainly have been a very potent vehicle for political change; he promised to 'beat Gore like a drum' on campaign finance.

The logic which drove Gore to pick Lieberman would be heightened facing off against McCain, not lessened.

Nor do I see Gore acting as disrespectful to a war hero like McCain as he did towards Bush in the first debate,

This is pretty shaky. Gore had a history of being overbearing - and successful - in debates and he probably simply went into the first debate riding on his standard formula. (When he had to recalibrate, which he was unfamiliar with doing, he went too far in the other direction) Likely he would do the same with McCain, no wallflower himself.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people forget than in 2000, McCain wasn't a bitter, cranky, flip-flopping old man who's vice presidential pick was chosen only to keep his loss from being a complete landslide.

McCain, era 2000, is a very respectable figure. McCain as of now is alienated from many of his colleagues.
 
I'm not sure why everyone is so convinced McCain would do better than Bush. Based on McCain's 2008 performance, he was a pretty inept candidate. He combined daffy political instincts (thinking he could ram Joe Lieberman as his Veep down the GOP base's throat and that bizarre lets cancel the debate strategem) with horrendous organization (I actually like Sarah Palin and think she was ultimately a net plus for the McCain campaign, but even I think the process they used to select her was astonishingly amatuerish). Nor is McCain exactly an inspiring speaker or strong debater. And the area where he is the strongest (foreign policy) is a complete non-factor in the 2000 election since that election turned entirely on domestic policy issues, most of which McCain has little interest in or ability to express himself on (watching McCain try to discuss health care policy was almost physically painful in 2008. I doubt he will be any better at it in 2000.)

It's also very possible that the Bush family (which has a lot of pull throughout the GOP establishment at this time, especially with the big money donors that McCain would need) will be working to quietly undercut McCain's campaign. (Since if McCain loses then that pretty well clears the decks for either George or Jeb to run and most likely win in 2004.)

This is pretty much my view on the situation. Even Bill Clinton said that Bush had better political instincts then McCain. Bush only screwed up two places after the primaries politically IMHO. Those were in not picking McCain as his running mate and as not coming clean on the DUI from the 70s which cost him the popular vote... that is assuming he actually remembered that weekend.

The best campaigner wins open Presidential elections not the best candidate.
 
Last edited:

bguy

Donor
McCain and his message would have fitted in very well with the national mood of change at that point; it's why he attracted so many Democrats and independents in the primaries.

Isn't it more likely McCain attracted those people because the Democrat primaries were a foregone conclusion, and they disliked Bush for his social conservatism? I doubt those voters would have turned out for McCain in a general election.

McCain might not have been as successful an agent of 'moral' change but he would certainly have been a very potent vehicle for political change; he promised to 'beat Gore like a drum' on campaign finance.

See that's exactly what I'm talking about in regards to McCain having horrible political instincts. His principal issue is something that the American people just didn't care about, at all. If McCain spends the general election talking about campaign finance reform while Gore is talking about education, health care, and Social Security, Gore wins easily.

Paul V McNutt said:
One advantage McCain had over Bush is that he was taken more seriously.

I'm not sure that's even an advantage. In American presidential elections it seems like being considered more likeable is much more important than being taken more seriously.

Also he was a war hero.

Which helped so much for George H. W. Bush in '92, Bob Dole in '96, John Kerry in '04, and of course McCain himself in '08.
 
Top