IC: So who are you all planning to vote for?
OOC: A subtle WI with just one minor change to the OTL election.
OOC: A subtle WI with just one minor change to the OTL election.
WI: 2008 US Presidential Election.
- Thread starter Bernard Woolley
- Start date
I wondered whether substituting Condi Rice for Sarah Palin would make any difference. She has more federal government experience, would probably appeal more to moderate voters and IMVHO more to African Americans and women than the OTL ticket.
Initially it did seem to make a difference as McCain/Rice was leading, but it is now level pegging.
EDIT: McCain/Rice is now one vote ahead.
IMVHO Rice instead of Palin would have made the election more interesting, especially to outside observers like me. However I think it is unlikely that Rice would run as McCain's VP candidate, not because of any personality clash, but because it does not seem she is interested in running for elected office.
Initially it did seem to make a difference as McCain/Rice was leading, but it is now level pegging.
EDIT: McCain/Rice is now one vote ahead.
IMVHO Rice instead of Palin would have made the election more interesting, especially to outside observers like me. However I think it is unlikely that Rice would run as McCain's VP candidate, not because of any personality clash, but because it does not seem she is interested in running for elected office.
usertron2020
Donor
It just wasn't their year...
This is an interesting thread, but a landslide is a landslide is a landslide. The jokers over at Fixed News may wax philosophically about a Jeb Bush ticket, but nobody with an (R) after their name was going to win that year. Just as nobody with a (D) was going to win in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, or 1988...
This is an interesting thread, but a landslide is a landslide is a landslide. The jokers over at Fixed News may wax philosophically about a Jeb Bush ticket, but nobody with an (R) after their name was going to win that year. Just as nobody with a (D) was going to win in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, or 1988...
I'm 99% certain you mean IOTL of course.
Markus
Banned
This is an interesting thread, but a landslide is a landslide is a landslide. The jokers over at Fixed News may wax philosophically about a Jeb Bush ticket, but nobody with an (R) after their name was going to win that year. Just as nobody with a (D) was going to win in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, or 1988...
What landslide? Obama got 53%, McCain 46%. Except for Reagan vs. Dukakis and Nixon vs. Mondale all presidential elections in the last few decades were close, with the winner leading by less then 10%.
This is an interesting thread, but a landslide is a landslide is a landslide. The jokers over at Fixed News may wax philosophically about a Jeb Bush ticket, but nobody with an (R) after their name was going to win that year. Just as nobody with a (D) was going to win in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, or 1988...
I think 1988 was definitely possible for a D to win, and 1968 was plausible. Most people probably know my opinions on 1972, too, although I'm severely in the minority on that.
Yes. Even with Nixon v. Humphrey, Big Labor's donating all their resources (thanks to the non-existent Democratic organization) to HHH nearly caused him to cross the finish line. Then it goes to the House, and someone must cut a deal with Strom (Nixon) or Wallace (HHH). 1988 is plausible if you have someone less limp-wristed than Dukakis.
There are three organizations in 1968: King Richard's, Kennedy Inc. and Big Labor. All three can bring in boots on the ground, but only Kennedy Inc. rakes in the cash.
There are three organizations in 1968: King Richard's, Kennedy Inc. and Big Labor. All three can bring in boots on the ground, but only Kennedy Inc. rakes in the cash.
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Electoral College
"What landslide?". Markus are you an American? Or from a country that uses the Parliamentary system? In our republican system, as Gore had to experience to his bitter frustration, it's NOT who gets the most votes that counts. It's the largest number of Electoral College votes. And by that ruler, Obama DID get a landslide. That's why the faces of the clowns at Fixed News were so long, so miserable, after Ohio was declared for Obama. There were alot more votes to be cast. But for all intents and purposes the election was over. After declaring the last two elections for Bush as "mandates", "good strong capital", "landslide", the Fixed crew were left sitting in the ashes. REAGAN'S landslide, and it WAS a landslide in 1980, was a popular vote of 51% Reagan, 42% Carter, 7% Anderson. A 51% vote wouldn't seem like a landslide, BUT THE VOTE WAS SPREAD OUT OVER VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Almost every state gave him 51% or more. THAT is a landslide. That is what Obama got, though not QUITE as extreme a margin. You might say Carter got curbstomped with boots, McCain with sneakers.
Markus, George Bush the Younger was elected by the US Supreme Court after LOSING the popular ballot. And Florida? After a Freedom of Information Act filing, four months after inauguration day, forced a REAL re-count, (one with no Rolex/Armani/Gucci-clad protestors screaming "Stop the counting, stop the counting!"), GORE won the re-count. That didn't stop George and his minions at Fixed News from using words like "mandate" and "political capital", which is what you get from a REAL landslide.
"What landslide?". Markus are you an American? Or from a country that uses the Parliamentary system? In our republican system, as Gore had to experience to his bitter frustration, it's NOT who gets the most votes that counts. It's the largest number of Electoral College votes. And by that ruler, Obama DID get a landslide. That's why the faces of the clowns at Fixed News were so long, so miserable, after Ohio was declared for Obama. There were alot more votes to be cast. But for all intents and purposes the election was over. After declaring the last two elections for Bush as "mandates", "good strong capital", "landslide", the Fixed crew were left sitting in the ashes. REAGAN'S landslide, and it WAS a landslide in 1980, was a popular vote of 51% Reagan, 42% Carter, 7% Anderson. A 51% vote wouldn't seem like a landslide, BUT THE VOTE WAS SPREAD OUT OVER VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. Almost every state gave him 51% or more. THAT is a landslide. That is what Obama got, though not QUITE as extreme a margin. You might say Carter got curbstomped with boots, McCain with sneakers.
usertron2020
Donor
Actually, in retrospect, you're right. I let my own prejudices FOR Nixon at the time get the best of me
. But I was only 8.Markus
Banned
No news to me. This voting system can distort relatively small differences in votes into huge differences in seats giving the impression of a "landslide" but some past presidential elections similar with narrow margins in the number of votes resulted in similar electoral college results, some not. And most important, you still got one candidate being backed by little over 50% of the voters, and the other by little less than 50%. Hence me not calling this a "landslide".
I wouldnt think that an internet poll of preferences is the best way to extrapolate a presidential election.
Fact is, this move almost certainly sinks the McCain campaign. Yeah, Condi is black and a woman. In case you haven't noticed, Palin is a woman too, and she did an excellent job of syphoning off disenchanted Hillary supporters, didn't she? Fact is, Rice is tied to the Bush administration about as tightly as you can be, and that is poison in this race. McCain was able to keep things as close as he did in large part because he did a pretty good job of distancing himself from Bush and making the election about Obama instead of the sitting Administration. Bringing in Condoleza Rice means that that is no longer viable option.
If we want to debate her credentials, she actually has spent less time in elected office than Sarah Palin (which for some reason is reminding me of Martha Coakley). She may shore up the GOP ticket overall (a big if), but she doesn't give it any real regional base; Alaska probably flips in this scenario, as do Missouri and quite possibly a few other states (Montana, Georgia perhaps?).
This is an interesting thread, but a landslide is a landslide is a landslide. The jokers over at Fixed News may wax philosophically about a Jeb Bush ticket, but nobody with an (R) after their name was going to win that year. Just as nobody with a (D) was going to win in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, or 1988...
1968 and 1988 are certainly winnable for the democrats. 1952, 1980, and 1984 are doable, with a bit of luck.
Not a landslide on the scale of 1968 or 1984, sure. But put it in context. Obama had the largest electoral college margin since 1996, the largest percent of the popular vote and margin of victory, the largest number of votes since, well, ever (by a clear 7 million). Not a full landslide, but in the context of modern american politics, its pretty close.