Retrospective on John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Joe Lieberman.

[Dave Gray]

There was an interesting question in another sports thread, but it got political, so I move my question here.

I am of the belief that the political climate for Barack Obama's win was just right for him.  He was a freight train and going to win that first term against John McCain pretty much no matter what.  Bush's brand was toxic at the time and McCain couldn't really distinguish himself enough to win over the middle, in my opinion.  It was a done deal that just needed to play out.

Apparently, McCain's original intent was to choose Democrat Joe Lieberman as his running mate, which would've been definitely out of the ordinary and perhaps created a path to a much more bipartisan government.  (To be fair, Obama had many Republicans in his cabinet, too, but that's not really the point.)

Anyway, he went the other way and chose Palin, a hardcore social conservative that appealed to the base.  She outshined McCain within the GOP, gave him a short-term boost, but ultimately put the exclamation point on his defeat.

Like I said, I think that he would've lost with Lieberman, too, but I wonder what it would've been like.  I'm actually glad in hindsight that he didn't pick Lieberman.  I wouldn't like to see that tactic employed and then the person lose, and bipartisanship be blamed.

Do you think that if a coalition of crowwover-types from both parties banded together to support a split ticket, that it would be a viable plan?  Can the political climate allow for this or would they get beaten down in their respective primaries for playing ball with the other side?

[Phishfan]

I don't see how anyone would get through the Republican primary running with a Democrat and I don't know any Republicans who would be willing to be the undercard on a liberal ticket. The only way you would ever see it is:

1 the candidates are so insignificant that no one really cares
2 we go back to the loser of the general election defaults to VP

[Dave Gray]

It could happen the other way.  I mean...a Democrat could run against Trump's 2nd term and then choose Jeff Flake or Kasich or something.

But also, you don't pick your VP candidate until you've won the primary anyway....but in terms of creating a coalition beforehand...

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I wonder if the outcome would have been different if Hillary had tapped a Republican (Snow, Jeb or other never Trump) Hillary would have lost even more Bernie supporters to Stein but picked up moderates that didn't like either canidate. 

Iirc there was chatter about Kerry asking McCain.

[Dave Gray]

^ Maybe with Hillary, but I think it's easier to make a switch like this after you have an unpopular incumbent (or party) to challenge.

[Spider-Dan]

I don't see how anyone would get through the Republican primary running with a Democrat

McCain didn't pick his VP until the primary was basically over; Obama did the same.  Outside of years in which the primary is competitive for an extended time, this is usually the way it works.  (That said, the increased money in politics means that candidates who would normally be flushed down the drain by March can now have the funding to stay in the race long after they have no shot to win, like Bernie did.)

In any case, to say that a McCain-Lieberman government would have been "bipartisan" is pretty misleading.  First of all, it's inaccurate: in 2008, Joe Lieberman was not a Democrat.  He lost his Democratic primary in 2006, and immediately formed a new party called "Connecticut for Lieberman."  He won the CT-Sen general election as a third-party candidate.  He did continue to caucus with the Dems, but his effective expulsion from the party made him just about the least effective avatar of "bipartisanship" in the country.

So ultimately, from the standpoint of governance, this would have been a waste of time.  Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic Party because his values (particularly on Middle Eastern wars) did not align with its voters.  And it's not like it was just the war; Lieberman was one of the first Senators to speak out against a public option in the ACA, and while there were also Dem Senators who opposed that, they were representing red states like Nebraska and Indiana, not bright blue Connecticut.

McCain-Lieberman would have been bipartisanship theater, not actual bipartisanship.  The media would have eaten it up, but it would have gotten nowhere with the voters.  The few Democrats that would have jumped over from Obama would not nearly make up for all the Republicans who would have stayed home.  Say what you want about McCain, but I think 2016 proved that the way to maximize Republican votes is not to run to the center.  I think Palin probably got him more votes than anyone else that was on the table.

[CF DolFan]

McCain didn't pick his VP until the primary was basically over; Obama did the same.  Outside of years in which the primary is competitive for an extended time, this is usually the way it works.  (That said, the increased money in politics means that candidates who would normally be flushed down the drain by March can now have the funding to stay in the race long after they have no shot to win, like Bernie did.)

In any case, to say that a McCain-Lieberman government would have been "bipartisan" is pretty misleading.  First of all, it's inaccurate: in 2008, Joe Lieberman was not a Democrat.  He lost his Democratic primary in 2006, and immediately formed a new party called "Connecticut for Lieberman."  He won the CT-Sen general election as a third-party candidate.  He did continue to caucus with the Dems, but his effective expulsion from the party made him just about the least effective avatar of "bipartisanship" in the country.

So ultimately, from the standpoint of governance, this would have been a waste of time.  Lieberman was kicked out of the Democratic Party because his values (particularly on Middle Eastern wars) did not align with its voters.  And it's not like it was just the war; Lieberman was one of the first Senators to speak out against a public option in the ACA, and while there were also Dem Senators who opposed that, they were representing red states like Nebraska and Indiana, not bright blue Connecticut.

McCain-Lieberman would have been bipartisanship theater, not actual bipartisanship.  The media would have eaten it up, but it would have gotten nowhere with the voters.  The few Democrats that would have jumped over from Obama would not nearly make up for all the Republicans who would have stayed home.  Say what you want about McCain, but I think 2016 proved that the way to maximize Republican votes is not to run to the center.  I think Palin probably got him more votes than anyone else that was on the table.

I just think Lieberman was one of the last conservative Democrats. When I was young I felt like many people in the Democrat party were similar to him but I can't think of a one today. I used to vote Democrat across the board but as time went on I found myself voting more and more Republican. It wasn't until Kerry was nominated that I actually voted for a Republican president and since then find very little to support on the left.   

[BigDaddyFin]

It's interesting that you mention this.  If any of you have HBO there was a special on McCain called "For Whom The Bell Tolls." 

In it they address this very scenario and how based on the Republican National Convention rules Lieberman's selection would have caused a huge mess between the delegates on the convention floor and so McCain went for the boost he got at least initially from the nomination of Palin.

They thought the novelty of having a woman on the ticket would help balance out or slow some of Obama's momentum but in the end as we all know it ultimately backfired. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

A McCain presidency would have been centrist regardless of the Veep.  As would a Snow presidency or a Lieberman presidency or a Joe Donnelly (Indiana) presidency.  Obama started out attempting to be bipartisan, but kept getting refused.  Some politicians by their very nature take an approach of let's start by seeing what we can agree with and work for a compromise on the rest (Obama, Bush I, Snow, McCain) others not so much.  Bill Clinton was much better at working with republicans than Hillary.  Problem is that we have gotten away from the art of compromise.  

[Spider-Dan]

It wasn't until Kerry was nominated that I actually voted for a Republican president and since then find very little to support on the left.   

You've mentioned this before.  Are you saying that the only Democratic candidates for president that you liked were Bill Clinton and Al Gore?  Because the only way it makes sense to vote for Mondale and/or Dukakis - two people far to the left of Kerry - and then reject Kerry as "too liberal" is if your own politics have shifted severely to the right between those votes.

[CF DolFan]

You've mentioned this before.  Are you saying that the only Democratic candidates for president that you liked were Bill Clinton and Al Gore?  Because the only way it makes sense to vote for Mondale and/or Dukakis - two people far to the left of Kerry - and then reject Kerry as "too liberal" is if your own politics have shifted severely to the right between those votes.

Dude  .. how old do you think I am? I was in middle school when Reagan was elected and was terrified he would start a war as my brother was a Marine.  Turns out his tough positions helped to destroy the USSR. The first election I could have voted would have been Bush/Dakakis but I was still too young to even care ... let alone vote. We were doing well was all I knew. After 4 years of Bush I did vote for Clinton ... twice even. And you what? I didn't care that he was screwing in the White House so now I care even less about what Trump did before he was elected. Most presidents are not honorable men so it's not like I'm looking to them for morals. I'm looking for them to head up the US and make it better for the citizens.

[BigDaddyFin]

Call me crazy but I remember the problem with Kerry was that he kept changing what he said every five minutes.  Also the speech he gave on the convention floor was all over the place. 

I'd rather deal with an honest liberal than even some fellow conservatives who hide behind a phony agenda.

[Sunstroke]

Turns out his tough positions helped to destroy the USSR.

Either that or my unparalleled decryption skills made the Soviet Union realize that they would have no chance whatsoever.

Just sayin'...