The Texas legislature was just barely a GOP majority until 2010 in OTL too.
TX Senate in 2009 was 19R 12 D
TX House in 2008 was 76R 74D
TX Senate in 2011 was 19R 12D
TX House in 2011 was 101R 49D
2010 Midterms for a McCain Presidency
- Thread starter Sevarics
- Start date
The Texas legislature was just barely a GOP majority until 2010 in OTL too.
TX Senate in 2009 was 19R 12 D
TX House in 2008 was 76R 74D
TX Senate in 2011 was 19R 12D
TX House in 2011 was 101R 49D
Under McCain that state House will be turning blue, even if the GOP keeps the Senate by a narrow margin. The annihilation that Democrats suffered under Obama would instead be felt by the Republicans, who by 2013 will be wiped out even in deep red states like Texas.
White Lightning
Banned
I think anything involving an Obama Presidency would turn the South solidly Republican. It is virtually impossible to deter a backlash from reactionary bigoted white men.
I don’t necessarily think Obama will win in 2012 when the country is probably in worse shape than OtLs financial crisis. It’s the prime environment for a far left person to win.
I figure that while McCain would not be a bad president, it would give the GOP painful blows, probably snuff out the Tea Party and force the GOP to be more centralistto purge Gingrich's influence. 2012 could have Obama win, but he'd need to be more leftish.
I also see the Arab Spring would be a big influence on the elections as well and how to better handle the Middle East and indeed, it'd be something that could hurt the GOP more.
I also see the Arab Spring would be a big influence on the elections as well and how to better handle the Middle East and indeed, it'd be something that could hurt the GOP more.
But consider this- Obama will now have a full term and a third in the senate before the next election, where it's very likely his pragmatism will get in the way of his idealistic rhetoric. He'll continue to sponsor and vote for bills that he knows the Dems and McCain will approve, while Feingold will keep being the brash populistic ideologue who will vote against his own party for bills that don't go far enough. This will lead to Feingold clinching it in 2012.
Another thing? Feingold could likely clinch another significant victory over Obama by working with the President to further limit campaign finance spending.
Very likely true, though what happens if McCain somehow managed to win 2012, if barely and because of familiarity?
Would we get an even more prolonged recession,
I really don't see that, with:
- A stronger recession, prolonged already by a lack of government action
- Cut spending on infrastructure
- Military involvement in the middle east (reminder that McCain is a hawk and will likely use force to solve most problems in middle east)
But if he does, and it would likely be another electoral college win, popular vote loss, McCain will be forced to compromise with Dems or they would shut down the government and Feingold and Obama would stand for days at a time raving against the system. 2016 would be Sanders sailing to victory and immediately amending to remove the constitution to remove the EC.
McCain could piggyback off of catching Bonn laden if he does succeed in doing so like Obama did in OTL. Of course, this could make his approach to the Arab Spring better or worse.
Granted, it would also cause problems for the blue dogs and Dem hawks
In 1992 Bush Sr couldn't overcome the bad economy in spite of his popularity from the Persian Gulf War, so why would McCain's re-election bid be any different? You'd see a short term bump in McCain's popularity before that fades away completely within months.
Fair point, and I figure the Arab Spring may be the final nail in the coffin for the GOP.
You think it’d be possible for the Dems to get a supermajority in the House and or Senate?
White Lightning
Banned
I think McCain could be a modern day Hoover. He would be so wedded to unfettered Capitalism and so allergic to Keynesian stimulus spending, that we could have something close to a modern day Great Depression that we barely avoided thanks to trillions dumped into the system.
Republicans would absolutely get blamed as they would have had 12 years of unfettered majority. Given his age and distaste for losing and how the economic situation is bound to get worst, I'm sure he could pull an LBJ and decline the nomination.
Just as McCain was the break point in Republican politics where they gave in to the crazies of the party, first Palin, then the Tea Party folks and finally Trump. I could see the 2012 nominee being a reactionary zealot, maybe not Trump but certainly Limbaugh and Palin would be in play.
Republicans would absolutely get blamed as they would have had 12 years of unfettered majority. Given his age and distaste for losing and how the economic situation is bound to get worst, I'm sure he could pull an LBJ and decline the nomination.
Just as McCain was the break point in Republican politics where they gave in to the crazies of the party, first Palin, then the Tea Party folks and finally Trump. I could see the 2012 nominee being a reactionary zealot, maybe not Trump but certainly Limbaugh and Palin would be in play.
That reactionary zealot would pretty much destory the GOP since they would be seen as a colossal joke and McCain's handling of the economy would make things worse. The GOP putting some lunatic for 2012 to lose to would just cement them as being the party of lost causes
Obama wins in 2012 and 2016, and the Democrats probably win in 2020 as well.
Maybe though Obama would have to be more leftist or maybe we'd see Russ Feingold take the reins if Obama decides he'd rather remain a Senator for the time being? The growing pains caused by the McCain adminsitration would cause a further leftist growth in the Dems were folks like Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold would get bigger audiences.
Definitely I could see Feingold and McCain working together like they did with their Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
As for Obama, while he was beneficial in helping alot of people in 2008, it did hurt the Dems and people in the long run because of all the compromises made with the GOP and such. Waiting 4 more years would definitely put the screws on people, but it would further hurt the GOP's stance and their ideal of "fiscal repsonsability".
Then maybe the Dems would actually try for universal healthcare along with voices like that of Feingold and Sanders dominating the Dems. Feingold was the only one going against the bailout because it didn't go far enough. With McCain writing the thing, it would be more favorable to Wall Street and Feingold and Sanders could use this to lure alot of angry voters to their side. Feingold being a Democrat, would probably climb up the scales of the political power and maybe work with Sanders.
Last edited:
Oh yes. They'd win Senate seats in NH, PA, OH, IA, MO, NC, GA, FL, KY, AZ, LA (with Vitter's scandals), SC (if the Democrats get a popular candidate), and AK. So if the Democrats gained 4 Senate seats in 2008 because of lower coattails with a McCain win (with Democratic losses in AK, LA, MN and OR), so that's 51 + 4 (2008) + 13 (2010), you get 68 Democratic Senators after 2010.
Add the possible Senate gains in NV, AZ, MS (if Musgrove runs again), TN, IN and TX in 2012, and you get 74 Democratic Senators after 2012.
The House is a shoo-in supermajority for the Democrats.
So by 2012, the Democrats would be able to pass whatever they wanted and if the President was someone like Feingold, then the GOP would be completely helpless then.
What do you think they'd pass?
White Lightning
Banned
Not true even now there are too many Conservative DINOs and moderates or simply bought off Dems to pass any of their holy grail wish list like free Medicare for All or Card Check or even free College and an end to student debt.
I don’t see Democrats losing the LA Senate seat in 2008. They lost the state in the presidential election but still won the senate seat by a lot. Doubt MN or OR are losses either.
Everything progressive. Shameless promoting, but yeah, my TL in the signature, "Yes We Will", the threadmarks about Hillary Clinton's* programs there, esp. the "Just Deal", everything in them.
----------------
*IMO Hillary Clinton is really more inclined to progressivism than many think. It's just that she's more of a realist, that's why she was not mentioning more progressive proposals in her 2016 platform. Also, she's the 11th most liberal Senator during her time there, and is said by FiveThirtyEight to be as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and a bit more moderate than Bernie Sanders. So... what I'm pointing out is that ITTL, Hillary Clinton coule be an amazing leader, still.
Also, if Obama and Feingold run in 2012, they could split the liberal vote who think that "Hillary's a moderate!" And she wins conservatives and moderates, and there might be this vibe that had she won the Dem nomination in 2008, so she could win the nomination and pick either Obama or Feingold as her running mate; IMO, Obama is her best bet.