WI: MCCAIN-PALIN victory in 2008?

It's not so much I don't think that Mccain would be intrested, as much as A: The Democrats would NOT want to hand him a victory on one of their key issues. THIS is why I think Mccain would put it aside.
B: I find (in a lot of ways) that the 100 days of Obama's presidency foucsed on health care instead of trying to get the economy restarted, as primary foucs, a bit... disturbing. I also tend to think Mccain's a bit smarter than that. (Plus, a republican Win, means less Democratic seats. How many? Unsure of. LIkey majoirty still is democrat, but not as big)
I think you could see the opposite, not having Obama in office means that the Democrats can still largely blame McCain for being "like Bush" and the Republicans for the apparent economic stagnation. In OTL the public reactively voted them out on "jobs." Here it's not as obvious to swing voters.

I acutally voted for him, mostly becasue I just got a vibe from Obama that "This man is dangerous" (Before I get harrased on 'racism' I was one of the first people to try to join Powell's potental campigan in 96. It's also I've been THOUGH Chicago... and if there's a city more corrupt than New Orleans... well.) I don't regret voting for Mccain. I can say when people bitch at me over the situation we find ourselves in... "Hey, I voted the OTHER guy." There are some benfits.

That was pretty much my reasoning. I figured McCain was marginally better and I could at least say I didn't vote for Obama when he inevitably won. In retrospect, very stupid and reactive on my part .

One of Mccain's plans was to cut that issue (Do you realize, that even if you're building the same. excat. plant, you have to get the same plans reapproved again, same excat process? Gyah.) in some degrees. Plus, the funding issue. 200 billion secure, arranging for the rest would be a lot easier.
Note: I did not say any of these reactors would be online (in fact, I'd be plesantly suprised if they'd be even broken ground by 1/1/12) or seriously under construction.
Fair point in that case.

Ah, heres where you misunderstood me (And Obama's beaten Carter already, in that regard. *Sigh*). I did not say he'd cut any (or cut the total number) I said "he would not do as MUCH". Meaning less reguations than Obama's admistration. Not less than when he started (Yeah, That's a forlorn hope...) Not to mention highly unlikey a few regulations that raised wholesale electric rates nearly _10_ times in the Northeast, unless you're in Ohio, where it hit _25_ times increase.
Well that depends, remember that McCain was for cap and trade. He could still wind up pursuing that in office. I don't think he'd feel beholden to "the base" like a lot of people here assume. I think if anything we might have a "Nixon in China" type scenario where on certain policies he takes a more "liberal" position on in his administration. Case in point, immigration.

Acutally... note the amount I stated. 900 billion. THere's several issues he's unlikey to have spent money on that Obama and the Democrats did. As for increasing military spending. Bwahaha. Unlieky with the makeup as is. Which is why I don't quite think there would be as MUCH. Still, 900 billion is a lot. Some military spending would have gotten though, yes, but not the huge increase People think. Some things that the Democrats and others spent money on, would not have gotten spent on. It's a wash.
Well if you assume that the GOP still takes power then a massive military build up is very likely, although I'll conceded I assume that wouldn't happen. Keep in mind that McCain's stimulus plan alone was estimated at $425 billion dollars and that got reject, and most of that was credits. Meanwhile Obama stimulus wound up being significantly more than the original $787 billion price tag. It therefore seems very likely that the end stimulus would have been significantly higher than $425 billion and that probably would have had more long term credits, sapping funds.

(Side note: There IS a keynesian mulipiter, it's proven. It's how it's spent, not just spent, it's on what, how, and why... and Kenyes also proposed tax cuts as well. The basic theory is, you spend some money now to keep industry busy, while the tax cuts take effect. You're supposed to do both. THEN when the Economy's booming, pay it back)
As I said in another thread there isn't an 100% consensus on multiplier, even a lot of not-heterodox economists like Robert Barro dispute it.

Acutally, this is where I disagree wtih you. How unpopluar Mccain is, depends on too many factors. I do agree the Democrats would not lose as badly (in fact, I doubt here, they lose control of the House in fact)

Well the house is a toss up. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't happen, remember that even a 1994 scenario was seen as ASB not too long ago on this board never mind what actually happened.

Stranger things have happened. Note I did agree it was likey.
Fair enough.

Iran, mabye. However Talk is cheap. To be fair, I HAVE met and talked to Sen. Mccain personally. I don't think he's as eager to scream and leap as you think, but I've been wrong before.

And as for all his record, its' more _being prepared_ and devotion to airpower, than acutally putting boots on the ground.
(Vietnam killed THAT in his mind.)
[/QUOTE]

He had Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol as advisors and advocated US involvement in Iran in 2009 to help the protesters. He routinely made it clear that the US would aid any dissident group in enemy states. It's hard to imagine a more militaristic candidate getting the nomination, other than Rick Santorum.
 
Anybody who associates Obama with Chicago corruption (people, he's been a community organizer, state legislator, US Senator, and POTUS) is betraying monumental bias. NONE of these offices involve municipal rule. Chicago is a city mired deep in corruption going well back into the MID-19th century.

Some people around here are reaching...
 
Anybody who associates Obama with Chicago corruption (people, he's been a community organizer, state legislator, US Senator, and POTUS) is betraying monumental bias. NONE of these offices involve municipal rule. Chicago is a city mired deep in corruption going well back into the MID-19th century.

Some people around here are reaching...

He was a Community Organizer in Chicago, used his Chicago connections to get into the State Senate (where the only thing he voted on was abortion and "present") and used those same connections to get to the US Senate (where he voted pretty much the same, and railed against many of the things he's done while POTUS) and POTUS.

there is no reaching
 
Depends a good bit on what Congress looks like. McCain winning should skew Congress towards the Republicans compared to OTL, but how much?

Also the Democrats, unlike the Republicans tend to curl up in balls after losses so you'd probably see a good bit of "bipartisan" legislation which pretty much all of the Republicans could vote for and about 1/2 to 1/3 of the Democrats would vote for (see Iraq, Bush Tax Cuts, etc. etc.). I think it's important to not fall into "if the Republicans just fuck things up bad enough for long enough the Democrats will be able to win a few rounds of elections" kinds of thinking. It took a lot more than Hoover fucking things up for Roosevelt to build his coalition...
 
Last edited:
He was a Community Organizer in Chicago(1), used his Chicago connections to get into the State Senate (2)(where the only thing he voted on was abortion and "present"(3)) and used those same connections to get to the US Senate (4)(where he voted pretty much the same,(5) and railed against many of the things he's done while POTUS) and POTUS.(6)

there is no reaching(7)

1) I'm always willing to learn. Was that an elected position?

2) You need to actually WIN an election to gain the office. Since he LIVED in Chicago, ANYTHING he does in the process of the election can be described as "using his Chicago connections". Mailing an application for the party primary and submitting it to a local mailbox is using local connections.

3) I don't say this often: Source?

4) See 2. And he ran against a double self-destructed Republican campaign. Pee Wee Herman would have done well as the Democratic nominee.

5) See 3

6) I think your last line needs some editing in grammar to make its meaning clearer. But if I follow the gist of it, you are saying that he has been doing as POTUS what he denounced as a Senator? Hypocrisy? Part of that is what happens when you are in the opposition, but in principle, there are some issues where he has been hypocritical, and I can agree with you when you choose to get more specific.

Compared to the GOP, who blanket condemn every one of his ideas, and their own, when he accepts them? Obama can't hold a candle to GOP hypocrisy in Congress. Boehner himself has said that he would never allow the passage of his own legislation if Obama says he'll sign it. Boehner's only goal is Obama's defeat; the country can go to Hell (that may be somewhat unfair, the Tea Party Caucus deserves that charge more).

And there is nothing hypocritical about his foreign policy (save not closing Guantanamo detention camps). While there is much to criticize in domestic affairs, he has delivered the kind of SCOTUS appointments he promised.

7) Oh yes, lots of reaching. See 1-6.
 
He was a Community Organizer in Chicago, used his Chicago connections to get into the State Senate (where the only thing he voted on was abortion and "present") and used those same connections to get to the US Senate (where he voted pretty much the same, and railed against many of the things he's done while POTUS) and POTUS.

there is no reaching


Obama voted his district while in the State Senate, but I think you're exaggerating his lack of involvement in state affairs a little. He wasn't really noteworthy, but he wasn't notable for his lack of participation either from what I've been told. He was just a run of the mill State Senator from his district. I understand the political advantage that comes with exaggerating his lack of participation, but it isn't really needed. He voted his district, he was, generally speaking, a Party Line Democrat. Which was his pattern in the United States Senate too, again speaking in generalities. Granted, I do not know all the details behind when he won his State Senate Seat, but I remember when he ran for Senate. And I remember that, in the primary at least, he was not the favorite to win. Or at least, he was not the obvious favorite. The Jack Ryan situation happened twice in that campaign, once in the primary and once in the general. Since he wasn't the obvious favorite, I do not know if we can call him the obvious "machine" candidate in that race. At least, I do not think you reasonably can say the machine handed him the Senate Seat.
 
We wouldn't have pulled completely out of Iraq like we have done. The reason we did was because the Obama administration would not negotiate with the Iraqi's about American Solider's being punished for crimes (many really dumb ones). With McCain in office, we'd have some pretty significant military bases there, even if the "main" part of the Army was gone (probably to Afghanistan).
Our withdrawal had more to do with the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, negotiated and signed by the Bush administration, which committed the US to withdraw all troops from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31, 2011.
The "Arab Spring" doesn't gain the traction as McCain would handle it far better than Obama did, and actually BACK our ally in Egypt (even if he is a ruthless douche of a dictator, he was a valuable ally against extremist Islam). Though I do see McCain pushing Mubark for more democratization. There is NO WAY we get involved with Libya. Libya is Obama's Kosovo. Illegal war using NATO to get involved with an internal matter.
McCain has criticized Obama for not doing more on almost every Middle East issue since 2009 (Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.). He called for a no-fly zone in Libya early on. Then he said a no-fly zone wasn't enough. McCain and Kerry authorized a resolution calling for Mubarak to immediately begin the transition to a democratic government, and called for Obama to tell Mubarak to resign immediately. He thought the longer Mubarak stayed in office, the more violence would increase and issued a statement calling for his immediate resignation, and saying that any attempts to forestall it would make things worse.
 
Vis a vis Obama's Chicago ties. He lives there (or owns property, to be specific). Chicago is also half of the IL popluation. And I'd do a long look at the compaines and other aspects who got rewarded. Am I saying he's illegallly corrupt? I do not have proof of that. But, Chicago like it or not dominates IL politics, and corrpution is a fact there. Also: HOW many Gov's of the state are in the fed pen now?

No bias, just a simple observation. I never stated he was illegally corrupt. Note, I was stating that CHICAGO was the most corrput city. Not that corrpution was unquine to it.

ALL politicians are corrput to greater or lesser degree. That is my bias.
 
I think you could see the opposite, not having Obama in office means that the Democrats can still largely blame McCain for being "like Bush" and the Republicans for the apparent economic stagnation. In OTL the public reactively voted them out on "jobs." Here it's not as obvious to swing voters.
Oh, yeah. Of course, there is the boy who cried wolf too often, but I tend to agree here.

That was pretty much my reasoning. I figured McCain was marginally better and I could at least say I didn't vote for Obama when he inevitably won. In retrospect, very stupid and reactive on my part .
Oh, yes. I just didn't trust Obama that much, and until Mccain abadoned his campigan for 3 days to vote on TARP, he was acutally likey to win (long story). Still. I'm not ashamed of my vote. I still think out of the two, Mccain would have been better. Of course, this isn't praise. XD
Fair point in that case.


Well that depends, remember that McCain was for cap and trade. He could still wind up pursuing that in office. I don't think he'd feel beholden to "the base" like a lot of people here assume. I think if anything we might have a "Nixon in China" type scenario where on certain policies he takes a more "liberal" position on in his administration. Case in point, immigration.
I dunno. I think Mccain would try to fix the economy first. I'll give him that much credit (note, I said I only THINK...)
And after a certain point... We're also not sure what effect Palin would have on his thinking, and she's definatly agasint Cap and Trade (side note, the US is on track for 17% reduction in _absolute_ terms, well over 25% in GDP terms of reduction in that stuff... without any of that. Hillarious)
Well if you assume that the GOP still takes power then a massive military build up is very likely, although I'll conceded I assume that wouldn't happen. Keep in mind that McCain's stimulus plan alone was estimated at $425 billion dollars and that got reject, and most of that was credits. Meanwhile Obama stimulus wound up being significantly more than the original $787 billion price tag. It therefore seems very likely that the end stimulus would have been significantly higher than $425 billion and that probably would have had more long term credits, sapping funds.
Which is why I went with 900. I split the difference

As I said in another thread there isn't an 100% consensus on multiplier, even a lot of not-heterodox economists like Robert Barro dispute it.
The consensus is there is some. What it is, is so variable that there isn't one. It's just no one's sure what it is. (and in fact, there's hints, via the last stim, it's less than 1)

Well the house is a toss up. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't happen, remember that even a 1994 scenario was seen as ASB not too long ago on this board never mind what actually happened.
Oh, agreed. Stranger things have happened, but I tend to agree here.
hell, 2002 was ASB, in a lot of ways.
Fair enough.


He had Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol as advisors and advocated US involvement in Iran in 2009 to help the protesters. He routinely made it clear that the US would aid any dissident group in enemy states. It's hard to imagine a more militaristic candidate getting the nomination, other than Rick Santorum.

And when the time came to put men on the ground, how would he react? It's a lot different when YOU are making the call. Like I said, I'm not sure.

Not to mention, how much would Palin affect things.

Side note: I think Mccain would be a one term, myself.
 
MageOhki

The idea that three days off of the campaign made him lose makes no sense. In an election season that gives two years of exposure?:confused: Or are you saying that it was the TARP vote itself that lost him the election by alienating so many members of the Republican Base? Because either way, no. Just no. Abraham Lincoln might have won the 2008 election for the GOP, but the Gipper, Ike, and Teddy Roosevelt would have lost, and done only fractionally better than McCain.

With the economy the way it was, Bush fatigue, the Iraq War, it was simply a time for a change, a Democratic year. Only with Hillary as a candidate would there have been a chance, with someone other than Palin as McCain's running mate, and Hill turning into a gaffe machine.

BTW, why do you see 2002 as ASB?:confused: Rove simply exploited 911 to the hilt, that's all.

Note- I confess a pathology against W, but not against McCain. He was just too old in 2008. In many ways, that election was a punt play for the Republicans. Like 1996. Or, for the Democrats, 1984 and 1988. Personally, I think McCain would have made a GREAT President.:cool: From 2001-2009.:cool: Much better than the two Democratic drips that ran in 2000 & 2004. Infinitely superior to what this country got instead. And before anyone starts defending his record, I personally took MY measure of that "man" by his actions against a certified war hero like John McCain in the 2000 South Carolina Republican Primary.:mad:
 
Top