Talk Elections

Would it have changed much? I have to think it would've been even worse for the GOP. Unemployment probably would've peaked at 10% right around Election Day. I assume TARP and some type of stimulus still would've happened, but the latter would've taken a different form given that R's had the White House and 49 Senate seats.

Would McCain have still been the nominee? The GOP may have looked for someone with more expertise on economic issues. On the other hand, the nomination would've been seen as so worthless (even more so than IRL) that maybe no one would have challenged him. I doubt Romney would be a serious candidate in this scenario.

I don't think the 2010 midterms would be as bad for the Democrats because unemployment would have begun to fall by then...maybe the Republicans don't even win the House.

I think Obama's reelection is a shoo-in.

Obama wouldn't be the Democratic nominee, because Democratic Party voters are probably going to go with someone who they think is experienced enough to guide the country through the crisis and/or someone with some populist street cred. My guess is that Obama wouldn't even be the go-to choice for liberals - it'd be John Edwards.

Edwards and Clinton (who fakes populism like there's no tomorrow) duke it out and Edwards' sex scandals probably do him in and allow Hillary to win the nomination.

On the Republican side, this probably gives a big boost to Huckabee, although I could still see McCain as the nominee. Either way, the Democrats win by an even larger margin, as now they have an entire year to hit the Republicans not just for their foreign policy failures, but also a massive economic crisis. Nader might get 1 percent of the vote.

()

My best guess.

Wait, losing IN but winning TN, WV, and KY?

Hillary Clinton is the candidate in the scenario.

Obama could attack Clinton for deregulation during her husband's presidency. Obviously, the Democratic primaries would play out differently, but I think the end result might be the same. You could be right though that the liberals go to someone else to challenge her.

Yeah, but if she performs so well in the Appalachian states, shouldn't that success translate to areas like S. Indiana?

Republicans would not have won the 2010 midterms.

The Democratic Congress would have passed a bailout but very little stimulus afterward, then they may have tried to pass a stimulus that would be vetoed by Bush for being too large. Then a Democratic wave too beautiful to behold would ensue.

The nominees would have been different.

Hillary would probably have won if experience were more important to primary voters, as in the months after a financial crash. She might've made health care a bigger issue, if there was greater economic insecurity.

Romney would have done better if economic issues were much more important during those early primaries.

Bloomberg might have an opening if both parties are unpopular enough, although these wouldn't be the right candidates to run against.

As for policy, it might have been better for Republicans to have an extra year. Bush did get some credit for responding quickly to the economic catastrophe, so they would have gone for a major stimulus.

Bush had nothing to do with it. Hank Paulson should get all of the credit.

Romney's ties to Wall Street would have doomed him. I doubt he would have entered the race.

Actually, I think one Republican who would've done better, though he definitely still wouldn't win the nomination, is Ron Paul. His opposition to the Federal Reserve, TARP, etc. would get him some more traction. In the real timeline, he was mostly just known for his anti-war views, as that was the most salient issue at the time.

As for the extra year, that would've meant unemployment would peak right around the  '08 election (if assume the same trajectory as IRL) and would clearly be on a downward trend at the time of the 2010 elections. It wouldn't be good for the GOP.

Nobody's addressing my point that other Democrats could attack Clinton for policies during her husband's presidency that led to the crisis.

One other point I'd like to make....people are saying the Democrats would nominate Clinton because of her "experience" and/or wouldn't nominate Obama because of his inexperience, but the experience issue is usually used in a foreign policy context. I don't see domestic issues being front and center, as they would be in my scenario, would help Clinton or hurt Obama.

There would have been some arguments about Bill Clinton and deregulation, although that might be too complex to become an issue in the primaries. Obama might have been able to make it part of his message of the need for change, but the primary was close enough that a small shift could have led to Hillary winning the nomination.

I'm unaware of any election in which a candidate lost a primary because of ties to Wall Street. So I don't think that would have been an issue with Romney. I think he would have gained more votes due to his reputation as a guy who understands financial issues.

You also assume that the economic trends would have been consistent regardless of who held elected office, although that gets more complicated since different decisions would have been made with different parties in charge.

Eric Cantor? Ro Khanna?