WI: McCain wins in 2008?

As a McCain supporter (and contributor) in 2000 and 2008 permit me to add a few thoughts:
1. Although it is correct that by August some of the air seemed to be leaking out of the Obama campaign and McCain seemed to be narrowing the gap, the financial meltdown of September completely changed the situation.
2. I believe that no Republican candidate could have won after the meltdown. No matter what he or she had done or said. Perhaps McCain could have handled the situation better by continuing to campaign and not making a big deal about "suspending" his campaign to go to Washington and then get stuck in the bailout discussions. However, no amount of campaining could have resurrected the GOP brand after an unpopular war, a financial crisis and an unpopular President widely thought to be out of touch.
3. I realize it is an unpopular opinion (both on this forum and in my own family) but I think the Palin choice was probably the best gamble McCain could take. It succeeded in mobilizing the base and injecting some excitment in what would otherwise have been a dull "two old white guys" ticket. Lieberman would have been seem by the Democrats as even more of a traitor than he is seen today and he would have been rejected by most Republicans, Romney would have been seen as a greedy ex vulture fund capitalist and Pawlenty would have been seen as . . . not much of anything. As an ex fighter jock, McCain knew he was in Obama's gunsights and something unexpected was required in order to not be blown out of the sky. He took a risk and at first it seemed to be working until a combination of Palin's own limitations and the piling on of the media reduced Palin to a joke. Even then (or perhaps because of it) Palin still was useful in getting conservatives to volunteer and actually vote. Please remember, McCain was, and still is, suspected of being a closet moderate by many conservatives.
4. Short of a gigantic mistake by the Obama campaign, 2008 was going to be a Democratic year. McCain did as good or better than any other Republican and he retained his dignity while losing. He continues to be a leader in the Senate and he may have some influence over who the next GOP nominee is.
5. Rather than making any gigantic mistakes, the Obama campaign ran a smart and controlled race and won by a good but not great margin. Like many successful campaigns (see J. Carter, W. Clinton and G. W. Bush) they then thought that governing a country was similar to campaigning and they have had a rough first year. Only time will tell if they will go down in flames like Mr. Carter or or make some needed mid course coreections like Clinton and win a second term.
 
The problem with the Palin pick is that she didn't win McCain any votes - no one Palin could have swayed was likely to vote for Obama anyway.

OTOH, the last time a Veep candidate substantively impacted a Presidential election was Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1960, so it may have made little difference, anyway.

But, finally, there were several right wing Christian conservative leaders who refused to strongly endorse McCain (mainly because they were trying to be intellectually honest but forgetting realpolitik), although the Palin pick MAY have energized some of their followers who otherwise wouldn't voted at all. But then again, how many of those people lived in the crucial, close-run states? Would a Jewish Lieberman have helped with the Florida vote, for example? Could Pawlenty swing votes in the Midwest?

Too many variables. I think I am of the opinion that the Vice Presidential pick meant virtually nothing to the campaign.
 
Alexander
I wrote at the time in my diary of him picking Palin that I thought McCain was going to win, it seemed a brave, bold gamble.
It could have worked, but my point is that the election was alot closer than people say it was or is believed to have been.
 
I thought McCain was going to win up until the meltdown in September. Obama was too much of a fluff candidate (and is currently a fluff President). I'm firmly convinced that McCain would have pulled off a victory if the economy didn't tank 2 months before the election.
 
although the Palin pick MAY have energized some of their followers who otherwise wouldn't voted at all. But then again, how many of those people lived in the crucial, close-run states?
Too many variables. I think I am of the opinion that the Vice Presidential pick meant virtually nothing to the campaign.

I know plenty of people who voted just because of Palin. You're correct in that she wasn't able to carry a swing state like Florida, but turnout from conservatives really could have cratered badly (and it was bad enough as is). I saw it nothing more than as a tourniquet solution for trying to maintain the base so that more incidences like North Carolina or Indiana occurring. By then, too much was out of control for the campaign.
 
Well, it would actually be an example of the Electoral College functioning as designed....but that's a different debate :)
Unquestionably, The Framers were ALWAYS Worried about The Possibility of a Tyranny of The Majority ...

Personally, I Think McCain's Best Hope, Would have Been for The Mumbai Attacks to Have Taken Place Right Before The Election ...

At The Time I Suspected The Timing was Intentional, What do you Guys Think?

:confused:
 
I know plenty of people who voted just because of Palin. You're correct in that she wasn't able to carry a swing state like Florida, but turnout from conservatives really could have cratered badly (and it was bad enough as is). I saw it nothing more than as a tourniquet solution for trying to maintain the base so that more incidences like North Carolina or Indiana occurring. By then, too much was out of control for the campaign.

OK, name one state that Palin influenced to go for McCain, that otherwise would have gone for Obama.
 
OK, name one state that Palin influenced to go for McCain, that otherwise would have gone for Obama.

Montana. They're pretty conservative, and seeing a Republican only 3 points away from defeat shows that the base was successfully rallied.

Alaska. Obama was within 5 points in the polls in Alaska in June, and a Dem won Alaska's Senate seat in 2008. Don't forget Sarah's popularity there before she was put on the ticket.

One might be able to make a case for Missouri, but it tends to be a moderate state, so she may have lost as many votes as she won. You could make a similar argument in any traditionally Republican state that McCain narrowly won (say Georgia).

So those are a few. Certainly, Palin wasn't the gamechanger that many who followed her in the run-up to McCain's pick (myself included) thought she would be. But remember, the only sustained McCain lead in the whole campaign was from the Palin pick to the market collapse. Palin is underappreciated by too many people, in my opinion.
 
I think your point about Missouri balancing out is accurate.

As for Alaska and Montana, I seriously struggle with seeing either of them go Democratic in a national election. With that said, even if you're right, the control a grand total of 6 EVs. As you point out, not a gamechanger. McCain would have been better served picking someone to influence states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
 
I think your point about Missouri balancing out is accurate.

As for Alaska and Montana, I seriously struggle with seeing either of them go Democratic in a national election. With that said, even if you're right, the control a grand total of 6 EVs. As you point out, not a gamechanger. McCain would have been better served picking someone to influence states like Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

This is true. A pick like Rob Portman or Charlie Crist may have been enough to change the outcome of the election. But, as they say, hindsight is 20/20. At the time, McCain saw that he needed a "Hail Mary pass". Palin was seen as the calculated risk he needed to revitalize a sagging campaign. And, for about a month, it worked. If the election was held in early-to-mid September, the topic of this thread would be "WI: Obama wins in 2008?".

Also, it may seem fine to say that McCain needed someone from a state that would have moved the map. But most of the options weren't that great on the Republican side. The only real options from changeable states were too liberal for the base (Tom Ridge, Tim Pawlenty, Joe Lieberman, Charlie Crist) or too conservative to draw independents (Rob Portman, Rick Santorum [crazy talk, but people were saying it was possible]). Pretty much, the campaign was caught between a rock and a hard place.

Even in retrospect, it's tough to find a pick that, on paper, was better for McCain than Sarah Palin. Obviously, she ran off the track and generally made a fool of herself on the national stage in a way she had never done on a smaller stage. But if it hadn't been for the economic collapse, McCain/Palin would have won.
 
If you want a POD for a Mccain victory, how about this: a week before the election, a video surfaces on the internet, showing Rev. Wright ranting and raving again, saying really nasty things about white Americans, and here's Obama, with Michelle at his side, sitting in the congregation. Barack is just sitting there, looking a bit uncomfortable, but the crowd is whooping it up, and Michelle is seen clapping politely.
Within hours, everyone is talking about the video, and there are an incredible number of hits on it. At first, the media won't touch the story, not even Fox, and there are the inevitable claims from varous sources that the video is a fake. But as time goes by, the story just keeps getting hotter, and eventually Fox, then a very reluctant CNN, begin reporting on it. It is then determined that the video is authentic, was made in 2003, and even a couple of witnesses come forth to swear that the Obamas really were in church that day, when Wright spouted his filth. Naturally, the MSM goes beserk. They claim that the witnesses were paid to lie, [ the paid part of it turns out to be true] and insist its just another GOP dirty trick ploy. Some more of the liberal TV personnel, desperate to save their messiah, refuse to talk on the subject at all, a couple go so far as to say they will quit first.
The Mccain campaign vehemently denies having anything to do with the release of the video, [later this statement is proven to be correct] while the Obama camp makes no statement at all for nearly 24 hours. Finally, a visibly shaken Obama calls a press conference [at which only reporters known to be sympathetic to him are allowed] and admits that, yes, he was there, couldn't recall the speech by Wright being as bad as the video showed it to be, and can't we just move on from this and do what's good for America.
The press goes out and does its best, and Obama's core constituencies [minorities, voters under 30, the coastal liberals] all decide to stick with him. But middle America, no way. It is as if everyone suddenly came fully awake. By the Saturday before the election, the candidates are dead even in the polls. When the votes are counted, Obama is still ahead in the popular vote by about a million, but Mccain got 15 more electoral votes. When the results are tallied [this goes on well into the Wednesday, as some results are very, very close] violence erupts in some cities, but is quickly put down. In San Francisco, there are at least 3 suicides, as some on the far left just cannot stand the outcome. Finally, Sen. Obama and Pres. Elect Mccain make a joint appearance, call for calm, and pledge to work together for the good of the nation.
 
the biggest thing you gotta do is drop Palin from the ticket, she probably scared more americans that terrorism, I mean seriously the woman was a heart attack away from being president, and McCain was quite old.
 
As for Alaska and Montana, I seriously struggle with seeing either of them go Democratic in a national election.

Alaska, I agree with - those were very early polls, and although Obama would have been much closer without Palin, I can't see him swinging it - but why Montana? It went for Clinton in '92, he nearly took it in '96 as well. I think the idea that Palin, a non-Washington westerner, probably kept it in the GOP collumn is a sound one. Montana has a history of favouring the Washington outsider, so without Palin it would be more obvious for it go for Obama.
 
I was thinking prior to the economic crisis of September that the election was going to be another close one like the previous two, in terms of the Electoral if not popular vote.
I hold the view of Obama that he was a good speaking, but he was and has proved after almost a year in the Oval office, to be talk and not much else.
McCain was the best Candidate the GOP could have picked, and he did come much closer than pulling off a victory few deemed possible at the start, and much my point is, it was the not the landslide that the media, espically here in the UK protrayed it to be.
Switch just over a million votes in those states I mentioned earlier and McCain wins.
Of course it would mean the election would come down to Missouri and those 3,000 votes.
 
You say 'switch a million votes' as if it's the easiest thing in the world. All Presidential elections come down to a relatively small number of votes in swing states - shift around 300,000 in 1992 and GHWB would have won, but I don't see anyone saying he was running it close in that election.

Balls to numbers - look at the actual vote percentages in those states. Obama won Virginia by six points, Colorado by eight, Nevada by well over ten.

I'm not sure why you believe it wasn't a landslide. Obama got around ten million more votes than McCain, beat him by more than seven points in the popular vote, beat McCain by nearly 200 electoral votes, and in raw votes won the largest victory margin for any non-incumbent in history. This was not, at the end of the day, a close election by any reasonable definition.
 
Oh, and I dispute the idea that McCain was the best candidate for the GOP. I am sure that Huckabee would have been much more formidable, but he was never able to branch out beyond his core support in the primaries and was always sort of regarded as the third man behind McCain and Romney.
 
Here is a election night timeline (and days after) on how McCain wins. I have only changed a state from Obama to McCain, not when it was called.
You will be able to hear the liberal media cry:D
Blue=McCain Red=Obabma Grey=TCTC
7.00PM EST
Georgia 15
Indiania 11
Kentucky called for McCain 8
South Carloina 8
Vermont called for Obama 3
Virginia 13
McCain 8 Obama 3
7.30PM EST
Ohio 20
West Virginia called for McCain 5
McCain 13 Obama 3
7.48 EST
South Carloina called for McCain 8
RUNNING-TOTAL
McCain 21 Obama 3
8.00PM EST
Alabama 9
Conn called for Obama 7
Delaware called for Obama 3
DC called for Obama 3
Florida 27
Illionis called for Obama 21
Maine called for Obama 4
Maryland called for Obama 10
Mass called for Obama 12
Mississippi 6
Missouri 11
New Hampshire called for McCain 4 (NOTE THIS THE FIRST STATE TO CHANGE)
New Jersey called for Obama 15
Oklahoma called for McCain 7
Penn 21
Tenn called for McCain 11
RUNNING-TOTAL
McCain 43 Obama 78
MORE TO FOLLOW.....
 
Some on this thread, including the Lord of the West Wing, Mr. Bunny, are attempting to formulate a scenario in which my hero, Arnie Vin. . . I mean John McCain, could have won the 2008 election. This is, after all, an alternative history forum.
However, in order to develop such a scenario, I believe the POD has to be the September financial crisis. If Lehman Brothers is saved, or better yet, does not need saving because of some financial deus ex mechanica (sp?) and the meltdown is either averted or is easily contained, I believe that is is just possible that McCain could have won a narrow victory. To do so would require the GOP to overcome the burdens of a flat economy, two unpopular wars, a President whose support was literally the kiss of death and the united opposition of the mainstream media from the New York Times, to CNN to the Washington Post.
How could this be accomplished? First of all, Obama ran a smart but "conservative" campaign. He did not make any major mistakes, presented himself as a uniter and allowed the GOP brand to self destruct. Without the September financial crisis this type of campaign might have run out of gas by election day. Without the financial crisis McCain might have been able to run a more aggressive campaign emphasizing his real accomplishments as a consensus builder in the Senate and his plans for moderate reform in the health care and financial regulatory areas.
It is also possible that without the financial crisis foreign policy would have been more of an issue (as McCain had expected at the beginning of his campaign) and MCain could have contrasted his expeience and "gravitas" against the untried and rather vaporous Obama.
One final thought, I have been a reader and subscriber to the New York Times for many many years. The hatchet job the Times did on McCain was truly outrageous. From the invented "he sleeps with blonde lobbyists" story to the "his wife is addicted to perscription drugs" story, the Times did all it could to destroy MCain as a politician and as a man.
It was not until after he was defeated, that the Times seemed to recall that MCain, whatever you think of his political positions, is a true American hero. The Times had a front page article showing John and Cindy as the proud parents of Annapolis graduate John S. MCain IV (who received his dipolma from President Obama).:)
 
7.48 PM
Penn called for Obama 21
McCain 43 Obama 99
8.30 PM
Arkansas called for McCain 6
North Carloina 15
McCain 49 Obama 99
8.40 PM
Alabama called for McCain 8
McCain 57 Obama 99
9.00 PM
Arizona 10
Colorado 9
Kansas called for McCain6
Lou 9
Michigan called for Obama 17
Minn called for Obama 10
Neb 5
New Mexico 5
New York called for Obama 31
Rhode Island called for Obama 4
South Dakota 3
Texas called for McCain 34
Wisconsin called for Obama 10
Wymoing called for McCain 3
McCain 104 Obama 171
9.16 PM
Georgia called for McCain 15
9.23 PM
Ohio called for McCain 20 (Second state to change-McCain camp begin to see they are still in with a chance of winning).
9.24 PM
Lou called for McCain 9
McCain 128 Obama 171




 
Top