A wonderful thread. And I'll add the following.…
Mitt Romney would've lost both states in which he was born (Michigan) and governed (Massachusetts). The last presidential contender to win election while failing to carry his home state was Woodrow Wilson, in his 1916 re-election, 277-254 over Republican challenger Charles Hughes.
Mike Huckabee would've played to the GOP's base of states: Arkansas and the deep south. He still would've lost Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. And, electorally, Missouri would've still been in question. (Just because it's a neighbor to Huckabee's Arkansas isn't assured. John McCain lost every neighboring state with exception of Utah.)
Rudy Guiliani didn't take the process seriously. So why return the favor in this analysis?
Fred Dalton Thompson is just a name I'm throwing out because I remember him seeking the nomination. In other words: he wasn't really a contender.
Ron Paul: Few cared.
So this leads to…
John McCain. The south wants a Democratic nominee from the south—former Ark. First Lady Hillary Clinton would've carried much of the states her hubby racked up in Elections 1992 and 1996 (along with Florida and, if the Clinton camp went after them, include Va. and N.C.)—so given that Barack Obama wasn't from this region, it naturally defaulted to the Republicans. Texas (34), Ark. (6), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Georgia (15), South Carolina (8 ), Tennessee (11), and border souths Oklahoma (7), Kentucky (8 ), and West Virginia (5). Some may want to consider Missouri (11) as another border south. It added up to more than half the Arizona senator's 173 electoral votes. If Hillary had been the Democratic nominee, that percentage would've been significantly reduced. But facts are facts, and so too the way Election 2008 played out. McCain carried states that were expected, he held onto his own GOP stronghold home state of Arizona and had no problem with running mate Sarah Palin's Alaska (one of 11 states that voted GOP ten elections running, 1968-2004).
I don't give too much credit to John McCain; but he was a better "electability" candidate than the others listed above. But the way I look at Election 2008: It was an anti-incumbent election, which very much refers to anti-incumbent political party. When one thinks of election years dealing with a very bad economy, an unpopular war, a low-approval president. Or a combination. Or all three. Well, the party in power is f'd. That was the case in five elections just prior—over a 60-year-period—that includes 1932, 1952, 1968, 1980, and 1992.
Nice analysis, even if it is much of what I believe. Keep posting!
I think that we also have to look at the VP candidate: Sarah Palin energized the base, but also energized the Democrats. Her political task was to turn a State or two shakily supporting Obama into a state or two shakily supporting McCain while losing nothing.
In September 2008, McCain drew close to Obama during the Republican National Convention... and then his campaign fell apart. Could it be that Democrats saw that McCain, allegedly a moderate, was not in charge of the convention as one after another Republican candidate or speaker spouted off old Dubya-era bromides even though Dubya was no longer popular?
McCain needed a moderate running mate, ideally someone who could have assuaged concerns of independent voters and showed some distance from the political impediment known as George W. Bush. In view of his age, McCain could have chosen someone with a wider range of political experience. George Voinovich had been Mayor of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and Senator from Ohio -- a Republican who had won handily in 2004 in a moderate State. Richard Lugar had been Mayor of Indianapolis (arguably the dullest giant city in America but also one of the best-run) before wining election for the Senate and winning handily every time. Both Voinovich and Lugar are well-respected in their region... the same region. Voinovich would have likely flipped Ohio to McCain, made Indiana a prize too slight a chance to win to be worth the effort for Obama, and put Michigan and Pennsylvania in contest; Lugar might have done much the same. Illinois would not have been in play, but Wisconsin would have been. Between Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, the Republicans would have had chances at 79 electoral votes that they eventually lost, 48 of which by prohibitive margins.
Don't discount 79 electoral votes; they were essential to Obama's strategy of campaigning outside of what seemed like the safe zone for the Democrats as of August. Late in September Obama had solidified double-digit leads in states holding 263 electoral votes, and the Republicans were just too vulnerable in too many possible targets.
Poll
