If John McCain won the election of 2008 how would he do in 2010 and 2012?

[Andrew Yang 2024]

The crash doesn't happen until May 20, 2009. But it is even worse than IRL. How does he do?

[libertpaulian]

The crash doesn't happen until May 20, 2009. But it is even worse than IRL. How does he do?

2010: Dems hold onto the US Senate seats they lost OTL (with the possible exception of AR) and gain FL, IA, OH, NC, and NH.  Dems make about a 10-15 seat gain in the House (which they held in 2008).  As for governors, Dems pick up AK, AZ, FL, and NV, but lose OK, TN, and WY.  Dems hold onto the rest.

2012: Dems win the US Senate seats they did OTL plus NV and possibly AZ.  They gain a few seats in the House but are likely maxed out.  As for governors, they win all their OTL seats, keep NC, and pick up IN.  They never won WI in this AU, so the Walker recall election never happens.

Just my guess.

[dw93]

The 2010 midterms are as bad or worse for the GOP as the 1974 midterms. In 2012 McCain, if he even chooses to seek another term, is Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter 2.0. The Democrats hold the Presidency in 2016 and likely 2020.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

There needs to be another point of divergence beyond the crash happening later for McCain to win honestly. He probably only gains North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida from his actual performance if there was no crash by then.

[dw93]

There needs to be another point of divergence beyond the crash happening later for McCain to win honestly. He probably only gains North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida from his actual performance if there was no crash by then.

Agreed, but I stand by what I said above with regards to how 2010 and 12 would fare under McCain.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

2010 Senate Changes:

Dems win NH, MA, PA, WI, OH, IN, IL, IA, MO, NC, KY, AR, SC, GA, FL, LA, ND, SD, AZ, KS

[Andrew Yang 2024]

What would the map be?

[brucejoel99]

The Republicans are utterly destroyed in 2010, with Democrats increasing their majorities in both the House & the Senate. They'd gain the Senate seats in NH, PA (& no, not hold it; the odds are that Arlen Specter doesn't switch parties in this scenario, but will probably lose reelection, & maybe doesn't even get that far, as he could very well lose the GOP nomination to Pat Toomey or somebody else), OH, IA, MO, NC, GA, FL, KY, AZ, LA (with Vitter's scandals, though if things look really bad, the Republicans could pressure him to step aside in favor of Gen. Russel Honoré), SC (if the Democrats get a popular candidate to challenge DeMint), & AK. Obama keeps his Senate seat & Feingold wins reelection. Whether or not the Democrats hold AR may depend on the mood in the Democratic base, as Blanche Lincoln could've very well been successfully primaried by Bill Halter. Also keep in mind the people that McCain would've been likely to add to his administration. Joe Lieberman would've almost certainly been leaving his Senate seat to become McCain's Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense. This means that a more doctrinaire Democrat would likely win his seat in a 2009 special election. Lindsey Graham would very probably get a Cabinet position as well, meaning that Democrats could have an outside chance of winning his Senate seat in SC in a 2010 special election. If Bloomberg doesn't run for reelection as an independent in 2009, then I wouldn't be surprised if McCain finds something for him to do, which means that a Democrat will likely win the New York City mayoral election in 2009; perhaps Betsy Gotbaum, who, as Public Advocate, would've ascended to the mayor's office had Bloomberg left early to join the McCain Administration, or Anthony Weiner, if his skeletons don't come tumbling out of the closet by then. It also seems likely to me that Bob Bennet wouldn't lose his primary & would keep his seat in Utah.

Keep in mind, though, that a scenario where McCain wins in 2008, no matter how narrowly, means much weaker Democratic coattails nationally. Republicans like Norm Coleman in MN, Gordon Smith in OR, & Ted Stevens in AK would've all likely won reelection that year, & Mary Landrieu would've likely lost reelection in LA too. (With regards to MN & OR, though, I think the Democrats would still get them anyway come 2014.) But regardless, even if the Democrats only gained 5 Senate seats (& lost 1 seat as well) in 2008 because of lower coattails with a McCain win, that's 51 - 1 + 5 (2008) + 14 (2010), meaning you'd have up to 69 Democratic Senators after 2010. Add the possible Senate gains in NV, AZ, MS (if Musgrove runs again), TN, IN, & TX in 2012, & you could see 75 Democratic Senators after 2012.

As for the House, it goes without saying that the Democrats would be a shoo-in for a supermajority there by 2012 as well, but a minor difference would be that, post-2008, Kirsten Gillibrand remains a member of the House without Hillary Clinton leaving the Senate.

Now, turning to the 2012 presidential election, depending on how McCain defeated Obama in 2008 (narrowly, I presume), if it'd been close enough in the electoral college, & Obama had perhaps won the popular vote, then he'd absolutely run again in 2012. It'd basically be 2000 all over again, with the difference being that Obama (compared to Gore) is more than charismatic, ambitious, & capable enough to actually be up for a round 2. I can't guarantee that he'd for sure get the nomination over Clinton again, but in this case, it seems like he'd have a very good shot. And if nominated, he'd be a shoe-in for beating McCain in their general election rematch. So, come January 20, 2013, the Democrats would be able to pass whatever they wanted, & the GOP would be completely helpless. And they'd probably pass a lot of progressive legislation.

As for other political implications, there'd definitely be pro-Democratic gerrymandering. It's evil, but the Democrats would surely go for it once they win in 2010, probably ensuring Democratic control of the House for more than a decade to come. Additionally, this scenario would also probably not see the southern Democratic parties get absolutely decimated. You may even see the South become solidly Democratic at the state-levels again because of this. For example, the Democrats got half of Mississippi's congressional districts after the 2008 elections, yet we all know what happened after 2010.

Of course, the biggest unknown factor in all of this would be how the American occupation of Iran turns out

[Stranger in a strange land]

There needs to be another point of divergence beyond the crash happening later for McCain to win honestly. He probably only gains North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida from his actual performance if there was no crash by then.

Agreed, but I stand by what I said above with regards to how 2010 and 12 would fare under McCain.

running against Hillary with no crash should do the trick

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I think the market crash honestly had a much bigger effect on downballot races in 2008 than it did on the presidential race. John McCain was just about in the best possible position that 1 could hope for in being able to distance himself from Bush, and therefore also the crash by extension during the 2008 election.

[Pericles]

The 2010 midterms would be pretty bad for the GOP, hard to compare with the irl 2010 midterms on a seat by seat basis but Democrats would definitely retain a solid House majority, probably make notable gains, and gain Senate seats and governorships (so they would have state level dominance for redistricting rather than the GOP, but I doubt they would or could gerrymander as aggressively as the GOP did, though even Democratic tilting maps would be a tremendous boost from the irl maps). In 2012, it's possible McCain doesn't run for re-election, depending on how his health is affected by the presidency, since he would be pretty old. However since his health did hold up pretty well until 2017, he probably does run, in which case he suffers the fate of Bush Sr (and probably at the hands of Hillary given Democrats would see Obama's nomination as a mistake if he lost and she runs as a populist and has much greater appeal to non college-educated white voters). After three terms in the White House it would be very hard for the GOP to win again, especially given the economic circumstances which they'd take the full blame for (while Obama could convincingly argue he had done his best to clean up the mess Bush made), and McCain's economic response imo would be less effective than Obama's with a weaker stimulus and possibly the auto industry goes under (which would kill him in the Midwest). President Hillary probably wins re-election in 2016 on the back of the economic recovery, but could suffer harsh losses in the 2014 and 2018 midterms (though her coalition may not be as bad for midterms as the Obama coalition was).