Pennsylvania

[Mr.Phips]

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9ndn-R1_I&t=126s

This is the day Lehman collapsed (so polls before this day had to be compiled for this map). Mccain was doing far better than Romney ever did in 2012 at this point.

Even in the period following the first 2012 debate? 

[Mr.Phips]

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.

I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

[Mr.Phips]

Economic collapse muted the display of Mccain's electoral strength. All pre-Lehman polls indicated Mccain to be a stronger candidate in swing states than Romney 2012.

Romney's economic positions actually hurt him.

I agree with this post. Without the financial crisis McCain could easily have squeaked a victory on the back of a Palin-inspired culture war victory as Trump managed in 2016.

I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Fundamentals were pretty horrible for Truman in 1948.

The economy had fantastic economic growth for most of 1948 with a huge increase in real disposable income.  The economy didn't start sliding into recession until late Fall, well too late to start having an impact on the election.

[Mr.Phips]

I still believe that in the end, the best McCain could have done was a 1968 Humphrey or 1976 Ford style narrow loss even without the financial crisis.  The fundamentals were still horrible for McCain and much worse than they were for even Humphrey and Ford.  Bush's approval ratings were in the 20s and the economy was clearly in recession territory.  Unemployment rose from around 4.4% in summer 2007 to 6.2% in late summer 2008.  No candidate has ever won with the fundamentals so much against them.

Someone said that had the economic collapse not happened, Obama's 2008 win would resemble his 2012 win - 4 popular vote lead, and the 2012 state margins.

That sounds about right. Palin could have been a huge boon if she was better prepped. She truly was the star of the 2008 election - even over Obama. No one cared about McCain.

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.

There were plenty that had Obama ahead of McCain in Virginia before 9/15.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/va/virginia_mccain_vs_obama-551.html#polls