WI: McCain never runs 2008

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

IOTL Romney was the runner-up in 2008 and the nominee in 2012. He did slightly better than McCain, but the Obama administration was something of a disappointment even to its own supporters and there were headwinds against the GOP in 2008. McCain probably had more personal appeal as a pol than did Romney. His career electoral record is at least more impressive. Romney loses in 2008 by a slightly bigger margin than McCain did.

In 2012 the runner up was actually Rick Santorum, but in recent presidential elections the Republicans have developed the practice of having an "evangelical candidate" who gets a large share of the primary vote without really having a chance of being nominated (Huckabee, Santorum, Cruz). The next runner up after Santorum was Newt Gingrich. The nominee in 2012 in descending order of probability is Gingrich, Santorum, or Romney again. Only Gingrich has a chance of winning the general election, and that chance is very slim. A President Gingrich timeline has possibilities.

 

[RightHoJeeves]

I could see McCain being more respected than in OTL. Many obituaries I read faulted him for picking Palin and helping to bring her brand of right wing politics into the mainstream GOP.

I think it's fairly dumb to distill events caused by broad cultural and political forces down to one individual's actions. Which is to say that McCain picking Palin did not cause the Republican party to begin its slide towards Trump-style populism, those forces were already at work and would have landed the party there regardless of who McCain picked in 2008.

 

[alexmilman]

Conventions are almost always associated with a short-term bump in the polls, regardless of the presidential or vice-presidential candidate. http://election08data.blogspot.com/2008/08/convention-bumps.html

https://web.archive.org/web/2008090...e/ALeqM5iZ98mObN7ahlFvymY3L42gTv2a2QD92RJHI80

I'm not arguing against that. What I'm saying is that Palin was considered by many in the republican base as a fresh face with (as far as anyone could tell) populist ideas and this was a factor (even if short-lived) in otherwise lackluster campaign.

 

[alexmilman]

Are you seriously disregarding credible journalism because it doesn't specifically focus on a quarter of the country? Most people are not devoted liberals or conservatives, so if a politician is very popular with the base but unpopular with the majority of the country (as Palin overwhelmingly was) then they will lose. Facts are facts, even if they don't jive with your narrow minded point of view.

Look, we are in AH forum not a political site and I did not make any personal remarks about you so please refrain from making offensive statements about me and my points of view of which you simply don't know enough to say anything intelligent. On that my conversation with you is over until you learn the good manners.

 

[Chapman]

I think it's fairly dumb to distill events caused by broad cultural and political forces down to one individual's actions. Which is to say that McCain picking Palin did not cause the Republican party to begin its slide towards Trump-style populism, those forces were already at work and would have landed the party there regardless of who McCain picked in 2008.

This is true, but I don't think the point is that McCain picking Palin in '08 is what got us Trump. It's just that, at least from my (and others') understanding, Palin was the first introduction to a Tea Party-esque pol who had somewhat of a legitimate shot at higher office. The Trump-style populism was probably coming regardless, but Palin was an early taste of it.

 

[alexmilman]

This is true, but I don't think the point is that McCain picking Palin in '08 is what got us Trump. It's just that, at least from my (and others') understanding, Palin was the first introduction to a Tea Party-esque pol who had somewhat of a legitimate shot at higher office. The Trump-style populism was probably coming regardless, but Palin was an early taste of it.

Yes, this was the early manifestation of the coming change but the Republican establishment (of which McCain was a part) did not get it and did not try to use the trend to their advantage. Enough to say that, even with a vicious treatment by the media, Palin remained for quite a while very popular in the "masses" (and was looked upon as a victim of the unfair treatment by pro-Democrats media) and could be used to stir up enthusiasm of the republican base. But even in the best case scenario the chances had been slim due to the financial crisis blamed to the Republican administration.

 

[Amadeus]

I think it's fairly dumb to distill events caused by broad cultural and political forces down to one individual's actions. Which is to say that McCain picking Palin did not cause the Republican party to begin its slide towards Trump-style populism, those forces were already at work and would have landed the party there regardless of who McCain picked in 2008.

Okay then, I think it's fairly dumb to disregard the fact that I said picking Palin "helped" to bring her politics into the mainstream. I clearly did not say the decision caused this. You are right to say these forces already existed, but you are wrong to misrepresent my words then call them unintelligent.

 

[RightHoJeeves]

Okay then, I think it's fairly dumb to disregard the fact that I said picking Palin "helped" to bring her politics into the mainstream. I clearly did not say the decision caused this. You are right to say these forces already existed, but you are wrong to misrepresent my words then call them unintelligent.

I wasn't calling you dumb, I was calling the obituaries you referenced reading dumb for focusing on that. I think it's overblown for reasons I stated above.

 

[Amadeus]

Look, we are in AH forum not a political site and I did not make any personal remarks about you so please refrain from making offensive statements about me and my points of view of which you simply don't know enough to say anything intelligent. On that my conversation with you is over until you learn the good manners.

For posterity's sake, here is my (hopefully final) response to alexmilman:

What a grossly hypocritical statement. I neither insulted nor tried to offend you. You on the other hand dismissed my credible historical evidence because it didn't fit your personal political bias, then mocked my post. Then you follow up by calling me ignorant and unintelligent, while arguing it is me who is using personal insults and lacks manners. True this is not a political site, but you are the one who injected your own politics into historical discussion then turned it into a childish mudslinging match.

 

[Iceyflames]

I think the only reason McCain got the 'maverick' label was that he was willing to work with Democrats. Something that some Republicans see as 'betrayal' for some reason.

His voting record is rock-solid Republican.

I know some that consider him a traitor for voting down the ObamaCare repeal.