Is McCain’s 2008 performance severely underrated?

[twenty42]

With an incumbent Republican president’s approval rating in the 20s, a crashing economy, and two unpopular wars raging, McCain was able to garner 45.7% of the popular vote and pick up 173 EV’s. Up to this point, these were the highest totals earned in both categories by a losing Republican candidate since 1976.

For the record, I don’t like McCain at all. But his performance in what should have been a Democratic landslide is pretty respectable.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

I do like McCain, and the only correct answer is: NO!

[Gustaf]

I think looking back it's pretty obvious that this was a year set up for a Democratic landslide and also that Obama was a much stronger candidate than many realized at the time. I do think McCain did better than many other Republicans would have that year. Not sure that makes it severely underrated though.

[mencken]

Yes, nominating someone like McCain was effective at ensuring Democrats had a decent worse-case scenario as they pulled the levers en masse for Obama.

When was the last time a non-incumbent had a bigger win? Reagan won by ~10% against a total failure of a President; the Allied commander of World War II had a similar sized victory with a different incumbent with 20s approval ratings. Combine that with our current partisan environment and it should not be a shock that Obama "only" won by 7%. 

McCain did not deliver an "underrated" performance. For that matter, he probably performed worse than his primary opponents would have. Huckabee had the likable populist outsider thing going for him and could have capitalized on that provided he didn't say anything too stupid about abortion. Romney, as wooden as he is, would have been most prepared to run in a economic crisis. Neither would have won, but they would at least put up a fight, rather than suspend their campaign midway through the election or pull out of crucial competitive states.

[VPH]

I think a Romney-Palin ticket might have done worse.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, nominating someone like McCain was effective at ensuring Democrats had a decent worse-case scenario as they pulled the levers en masse for Obama.

When was the last time a non-incumbent had a bigger win? Reagan won by ~10% against a total failure of a President; the Allied commander of World War II had a similar sized victory with a different incumbent with 20s approval ratings. Combine that with our current partisan environment and it should not be a shock that Obama "only" won by 7%. 

McCain did not deliver an "underrated" performance. For that matter, he probably performed worse than his primary opponents would have. Huckabee had the likable populist outsider thing going for him and could have capitalized on that provided he didn't say anything too stupid about abortion. Romney, as wooden as he is, would have been most prepared to run in a economic crisis. Neither would have won, but they would at least put up a fight, rather than suspend their campaign midway through the election or pull out of crucial competitive states.

Bush Sr actually, oh and Bill Clinton wasn't that far off in '92.

[uti2]

Yes, nominating someone like McCain was effective at ensuring Democrats had a decent worse-case scenario as they pulled the levers en masse for Obama.

When was the last time a non-incumbent had a bigger win? Reagan won by ~10% against a total failure of a President; the Allied commander of World War II had a similar sized victory with a different incumbent with 20s approval ratings. Combine that with our current partisan environment and it should not be a shock that Obama "only" won by 7%. 

McCain did not deliver an "underrated" performance. For that matter, he probably performed worse than his primary opponents would have. Huckabee had the likable populist outsider thing going for him and could have capitalized on that provided he didn't say anything too stupid about abortion. Romney, as wooden as he is, would have been most prepared to run in a economic crisis. Neither would have won, but they would at least put up a fight, rather than suspend their campaign midway through the election or pull out of crucial competitive states.

Obama would've received 400+ EVs against Romney in 2008. Romney would've had to deal with all of the problems of the political environment + all the attacks dished out against him in 2012.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Yes, nominating someone like McCain was effective at ensuring Democrats had a decent worse-case scenario as they pulled the levers en masse for Obama.

When was the last time a non-incumbent had a bigger win? Reagan won by ~10% against a total failure of a President; the Allied commander of World War II had a similar sized victory with a different incumbent with 20s approval ratings. Combine that with our current partisan environment and it should not be a shock that Obama "only" won by 7%. 

McCain did not deliver an "underrated" performance. For that matter, he probably performed worse than his primary opponents would have. Huckabee had the likable populist outsider thing going for him and could have capitalized on that provided he didn't say anything too stupid about abortion. Romney, as wooden as he is, would have been most prepared to run in a economic crisis. Neither would have won, but they would at least put up a fight, rather than suspend their campaign midway through the election or pull out of crucial competitive states.

Obama would've received 400+ EVs against Romney in 2008. Romney would've had to deal with all of the problems of the political environment + all the attacks dished out against him in 2012.

Not to mention his ties to Bain Capital combined with the financial crisis.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I think a Romney-Palin ticket might have done worse.

Or if McCain had had his way and picked his BFF Lieberman. He would have picked up virtually no Democratic votes and enough conservatives would have stayed home to possibly swing at least 3-5 additional states Obama's way.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Without the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, McCain likely could've kept Obama to his 2012 margin.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes, nominating someone like McCain was effective at ensuring Democrats had a decent worse-case scenario as they pulled the levers en masse for Obama.

When was the last time a non-incumbent had a bigger win? Reagan won by ~10% against a total failure of a President; the Allied commander of World War II had a similar sized victory with a different incumbent with 20s approval ratings. Combine that with our current partisan environment and it should not be a shock that Obama "only" won by 7%. 

You must take into account the increased political polarization. I very much doubt Jesus Christ himself would've won by a double digits.

[CookieDamage]

Yes, nominating someone like McCain was effective at ensuring Democrats had a decent worse-case scenario as they pulled the levers en masse for Obama.

When was the last time a non-incumbent had a bigger win? Reagan won by ~10% against a total failure of a President; the Allied commander of World War II had a similar sized victory with a different incumbent with 20s approval ratings. Combine that with our current partisan environment and it should not be a shock that Obama "only" won by 7%. 

You must take into account the increased political polarization. I very much doubt Jesus Christ himself would've won by a double digits.

^^^ This. Barack Obama would have won all but Alabama, West Virginia, and Oklahoma if we weren't so polarized in the 21st century.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Yes, nominating someone like McCain was effective at ensuring Democrats had a decent worse-case scenario as they pulled the levers en masse for Obama.

When was the last time a non-incumbent had a bigger win? Reagan won by ~10% against a total failure of a President; the Allied commander of World War II had a similar sized victory with a different incumbent with 20s approval ratings. Combine that with our current partisan environment and it should not be a shock that Obama "only" won by 7%. 

You must take into account the increased political polarization. I very much doubt Jesus Christ himself would've won by a double digits.

^^^ This. Barack Obama would have won all but Alabama, West Virginia, and Oklahoma if we weren't so polarized in the 21st century.

You mean to tell me he would win Wyoming before he would win West Virginia, a state he "only" lost by 13%

[dw93]

Yes, and keep in mind, before Lehman Brothers collapsed the polls were pretty close and McCain did get enough of a boost  after the Republican convention to narrowly overtake Obama in the polls and this was despite Bush's historically low approval rating, two unpopular wars that McCain strongly supported, and high gas prices. I don't think Huckabee or Romney would've been able to pull that off, and thus I think both would've done worse than McCain. Huckabee because of his extremely reactionary social views and Romney because he had everything that sunk him in 2012 (his record at Bain, flip flopping, etc...) and unlike McCain or even Huckabee, Romney wouldn't be able to play the "experience" card against Obama.

McCain was the only Republican who had a shot at winning that year and I think even the donors came to realize that by the time the primaries started, which was why they switched their support from Romney, even though they hated McCain almost as much as the Republican base.

[mianfei]

I wouldn't think so. McCain underperformed badly in the powerfully GOP if highly volatile states of Montana and the Dakotas, and did this despite heading the first "all western" ticket in Presidential election history. Whilst this underperformance, and being only the fifth GOP candidate to lose Indiana since 1896, is undoubtedly in part due to Obama's "prairie radical" character (a la La Follette or Humphrey or McGovern whose heir I have always assumed Obama to be) it does not suggest McCain had the sort of personal or political appeal he needed to win.

More than that, although McCain gained in the socially archconservative Appalachian region, his relatively moderate image could achieve little or nothing with coastal urban and suburban voters who began to trend Democratic in 1996. Then, he was just as bad a failure as fellow Arizonan Goldwater in New England and New York.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Yes, and keep in mind, before Lehman Brothers collapsed the polls were pretty close and McCain did get enough of a boost  after the Republican convention to narrowly overtake Obama in the polls and this was despite Bush's historically low approval rating, two unpopular wars that McCain strongly supported, and high gas prices. I don't think Huckabee or Romney would've been able to pull that off, and thus I think both would've done worse than McCain. Huckabee because of his extremely reactionary social views and Romney because he had everything that sunk him in 2012 (his record at Bain, flip flopping, etc...) and unlike McCain or even Huckabee, Romney wouldn't be able to play the "experience" card against Obama.

McCain was the only Republican who had a shot at winning that year and I think even the donors came to realize that by the time the primaries started, which was why they switched their support from Romney, even though they hated McCain almost as much as the Republican base.

The really didnt start to do that until McCain won NH and SC though.