McCain vs. Obama 2008, with a strong economy.

[Psychic Octopus]

Let's say that, against all reason, the economy is strong and healthy in 2008, at rates similar to the mid to late '90s. The DOW Jones is on a steady track of growth, and unemployment is around four percent. Basically, a healthy and intact economy is in the background to 2008. The deficit and national debt are smaller on election day, but still fairly large.

In 2008, the Republicans nominate John McCain and Sarah Palin, and the Democrats nominate Barack Obama and Joe Biden. With a strong economy, how different is the election?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

[justW353]

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

O 264 M 274

[Dancing with Myself]

McCain/Palin-339
Obama/Biden- 199

[California8429]

McCain/Palin-339
Obama/Biden- 199

^ maybe a little more toward Obama. But Palin gets out conservative vote, and McCain has no trouble getting independents and even more Hillary supporters with the economy good shape and him focussing on experience with the Iraq War

[Psychic Octopus]

I don't see how Obama wins here, even narrowly. McCain may have picked Palin, but he could've outtalked Obama on Iraq, who would've had to backtrack with the success of the surge.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Strong economy or not, the Republicans were going to lose in '08. I mean, look at our recent federal election in 2007. The Australian economy was going gangbusters; unemployment at 33 year lows, inflation at 2-3%, etc and yet Rudd still managed to win comprehensively. So, in spite of the specifications of the scenario, Obama would win, albeit by a smaller margin. Maybe 291-247 or there abouts.

[Psychic Octopus]

Strong economy or not, the Republicans were going to lose in '08. I mean, look at our recent federal election in 2007. The Australian economy was going gangbusters; unemployment at 33 year lows, inflation at 2-3%, etc and yet Rudd still managed to win comprehensively. So, in spite of the specifications of the scenario, Obama would win, albeit by a smaller margin. Maybe 291-247 or there abouts.

I'm not sure If I follow, you mean even if the economy was as good as I projected? I can see an Obama victory, but I can't make it out (despite Sarah Palin) to be predestined that the Republicans were going to lose, especially with a candidate as 'strong' as McCain.

Admittedly, though, I know very little about Australian politics.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

291 - 247

[21st Century Independent]

McCain 290
Obama 248

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Strong economy or not, the Republicans were going to lose in '08. I mean, look at our recent federal election in 2007. The Australian economy was going gangbusters; unemployment at 33 year lows, inflation at 2-3%, etc and yet Rudd still managed to win comprehensively. So, in spite of the specifications of the scenario, Obama would win, albeit by a smaller margin. Maybe 291-247 or there abouts.

I'm not sure If I follow, you mean even if the economy was as good as I projected? I can see an Obama victory, but I can't make it out (despite Sarah Palin) to be predestined that the Republicans were going to lose, especially with a candidate as 'strong' as McCain.

Admittedly, though, I know very little about Australian politics.

Yeah, I don't quite get Conor's logic either. If the economy was booming, its highly doubtful that the Republicans would be predestined to lose.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How is that possible?

[Mechaman]

Strong economy or not, the Republicans were going to lose in '08. I mean, look at our recent federal election in 2007. The Australian economy was going gangbusters; unemployment at 33 year lows, inflation at 2-3%, etc and yet Rudd still managed to win comprehensively. So, in spite of the specifications of the scenario, Obama would win, albeit by a smaller margin. Maybe 291-247 or there abouts.

I'm not sure If I follow, you mean even if the economy was as good as I projected? I can see an Obama victory, but I can't make it out (despite Sarah Palin) to be predestined that the Republicans were going to lose, especially with a candidate as 'strong' as McCain.

Admittedly, though, I know very little about Australian politics.

Yeah, I don't quite get Conor's logic either. If the economy was booming, its highly doubtful that the Republicans would be predestined to lose.

Yeah because the strong economy saved the Democrats in 1968..........

[Barnes]

For one thing, the likelihood that the economy would be that strong minus the finical crisis is slim within itself.

Most likely, the economy would have stilled slowed, and eventually stagnated. Of course, the crisis that happened in real life might not have happened, but, I don't believe that the economy would have been that strong without the crisis.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Strong economy or not, the Republicans were going to lose in '08. I mean, look at our recent federal election in 2007. The Australian economy was going gangbusters; unemployment at 33 year lows, inflation at 2-3%, etc and yet Rudd still managed to win comprehensively. So, in spite of the specifications of the scenario, Obama would win, albeit by a smaller margin. Maybe 291-247 or there abouts.

I'm not sure If I follow, you mean even if the economy was as good as I projected? I can see an Obama victory, but I can't make it out (despite Sarah Palin) to be predestined that the Republicans were going to lose, especially with a candidate as 'strong' as McCain.

Admittedly, though, I know very little about Australian politics.

Yeah, I don't quite get Conor's logic either. If the economy was booming, its highly doubtful that the Republicans would be predestined to lose.

Yeah because the strong economy saved the Democrats in 1968..........

Uh, 2008 compares to 1968 how exactly?

[Mechaman]

Strong economy or not, the Republicans were going to lose in '08. I mean, look at our recent federal election in 2007. The Australian economy was going gangbusters; unemployment at 33 year lows, inflation at 2-3%, etc and yet Rudd still managed to win comprehensively. So, in spite of the specifications of the scenario, Obama would win, albeit by a smaller margin. Maybe 291-247 or there abouts.

I'm not sure If I follow, you mean even if the economy was as good as I projected? I can see an Obama victory, but I can't make it out (despite Sarah Palin) to be predestined that the Republicans were going to lose, especially with a candidate as 'strong' as McCain.

Admittedly, though, I know very little about Australian politics.

Yeah, I don't quite get Conor's logic either. If the economy was booming, its highly doubtful that the Republicans would be predestined to lose.

Yeah because the strong economy saved the Democrats in 1968..........

Uh, 2008 compares to 1968 how exactly?

In this scenario....economy.
You imply that a booming economy means it is highly unlikely a candidate will lose, but give conditions like a war that most of the people hate then they could get voted out of office.
I don't recall the OP of this scenario saying that the people liked the War in Iraq or even if they liked George Bush.  Despite the economy in 1968 enough people were sick of Johnson to vote for Nixon.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Strong economy or not, the Republicans were going to lose in '08. I mean, look at our recent federal election in 2007. The Australian economy was going gangbusters; unemployment at 33 year lows, inflation at 2-3%, etc and yet Rudd still managed to win comprehensively. So, in spite of the specifications of the scenario, Obama would win, albeit by a smaller margin. Maybe 291-247 or there abouts.

I'm not sure If I follow, you mean even if the economy was as good as I projected? I can see an Obama victory, but I can't make it out (despite Sarah Palin) to be predestined that the Republicans were going to lose, especially with a candidate as 'strong' as McCain.

Admittedly, though, I know very little about Australian politics.

Yeah, I don't quite get Conor's logic either. If the economy was booming, its highly doubtful that the Republicans would be predestined to lose.

Yeah because the strong economy saved the Democrats in 1968..........

Uh, 2008 compares to 1968 how exactly?

In this scenario....economy.
You imply that a booming economy means it is highly unlikely a candidate will lose, but give conditions like a war that most of the people hate then they could get voted out of office.
I don't recall the OP of this scenario saying that the people liked the War in Iraq or even if they liked George Bush.  Despite the economy in 1968 enough people were sick of Johnson to vote for Nixon.

McCain was on his way to winning the race even with a mediocre economy. It was only when things became catastrophic that voters abandoned him in droves. With a booming economy, Obama would be the definite underdog.

[Psychic Octopus]

For one thing, the likelihood that the economy would be that strong minus the finical crisis is slim within itself.

Most likely, the economy would have stilled slowed, and eventually stagnated. Of course, the crisis that happened in real life might not have happened, but, I don't believe that the economy would have been that strong without the crisis.

Well it isn't supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be very, very unlikely as I mentioned before hand, with Clinton-like levels of growth.

[GLPman]

Obama/Biden - 284
McCain/Palin - 254

[Bo]

Here's how I would envision this scenario occurs. Between 2001 and 2004, Bush Jr. pressures Alan Greenspan not to lower interest rates too much and not to keep them too low for too long. Thus the housing bubble is never created. In order to revive the economy, Bush Jr. passes a large stimulus package (which he calls The Capital Injection Act) in his first term, thus reviving the economy and helping him get reelected. The economy grows steadily and continuously since 2003 and many new jobs are created between 2003 and 2008.

Now for the results:

McCain/Palin-342 EV
Obama/Biden-196 EV

McCain wins in a large landslide due to the good economy and the improving situation in Iraq. NiK, how do you think this election (under these cirumstances) would have turned out if Hillary was the nominee instead of Obama?

[Psychic Octopus]

Interesting scenario. I would expect that Hillary would do marginally better, but in the end I'd see McCain winning by a 51-48 margin, and not a 53-46 or such margin.

[justW353]

Well, Palin wouldn't have been the VP nominee, and Hillary probably would be the Democratic nominee. 

I'd say Obama would hold off for 2012 or 2016 in this scenario.

[Bo]

Well, Palin wouldn't have been the VP nominee, and Hillary probably would be the Democratic nominee. 

I'd say Obama would hold off for 2012 or 2016 in this scenario.

I beg to differ. I still think Obama would run in this scenario, since Iraq was the hot issue in late 2006/early 2007 (when Obama announced his bid) and back then no one knew what the economy would look like in 2008. Thus, since the Iraq War still occurs in this scenario, Obama still decides to run in 2008. Hillary might have won the nomination, though, since the economy officially went into a recession in December 2007 and all of the primaries/caucuses were held after that date (and thus many Democrats thought Obama would win due to the poor economy and decided to vote for him). I think that if the economy was in good shape in 2008, many Democrats would have worried about electability more and thus decided to vote for Hillary in the priamries, giving her the nomination. In regards to Palin, you're probaably right that McCain would not have picked her for VP in this scenario.

[Derek]

http://

We were looking at a McCain landslide on the eve of the housing market collapse. Btw he had his own bill in 2005 that he proposed to the senate.