Would've been far closer than 2012. Before Lehman collapsed, not a single poll had Obama up in FL, VA, etc., in contrast, Hillary easily beat Mccain in FL and was competitive in a number of southern states like AR.
Obama was struggling in the polls in Virginia and Florida leading up to election day 2012.
He would have separated himself in 2008 as well. Same margins as 2012. No one cared about McCain and Palin was a flop after initial excitement.
Obama would have won Virginia 3-5 points in 2008 and Florida by 0.5-1.5.
You're talking about last minute partisan surges, which happens in all normal elections, and would've happened for Mccain too, if not for the collapse. That would've put him over the top in a number of states. Like I said, Palin was no different from Rubio, she had a script, she wouldn't have needed to have done anything else other than read off it under normal conditions. Put Rubio in the same position, and he would've done the exact same things as Palin.
Less people were excited about Romney. Mccain at least had some centrist appeal.
Palin was different from Rubio in that she was a phenomenon. Her acceptance speech got nearly as many views as Obama's did (virtually tied). Her debate with Biden was the highest rated debate (70 million viewers) since Reagan vs. Carter.
Palin had almost as much online interest as Obama did AFTER Obama was declared the winner. To compare how incredible that is, Hillary Clinton didn't even get near Trump after the 2016 election. Remember that Hillary Clinton is also a controversial/infamous figure in American politics.
2008 was Palinmania. If the economic collapse never happened and Palin was better prepared, then perhaps McCain could have made it a close race.
But McCain was doomed due to George W. Bush.
