Very interesting--Emanresu11 21:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No offense, but McCain had absoultley no chance of winning the election, especially with Palin on the ticket and and in the same party as Bush. - 82.38.98.206 19:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice alternate history here, I like it a lot! :) But what I don't understand is why Rod Blagojevich was impeached, because Obama still has his senate seat. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Contribs 21:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is true. He might (probably would?) have gotten nailed for something eventually, but with no Senate seat to sell, he would not have faced anything like impeachment so early. Benkarnell 04:31, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
McCain and Afghanistan[]
An initial transfer of 10,000 soldiers to Afghanistan would be too little. In July 2008, McCain said that reducing U.S. forces in Iraq would free up troops for Afghanistan, where "at least" three additional brigades, or about 15,000 troops, must be sent. A campaign aide said later that McCain's proposal included a combination of both U.S. and NATO forces.
And on February 17, 2009 in OTL, the U.S. government announced that 17,000 additional troops would be deployed to the country in two brigades; the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade and the 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, a Stryker Brigade. Link: [1]
I think it is likely that McCain would have ordered these two brigades and a third one (as mentioned above), but this is my interpretation. I would suggest that you take this into consideration, but I can't force you to change it. It is your timeline. However, if you by chance want some assistance in military matters I would be delighted to help you. ;)
Regards, Realismadder 18:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
NATO summit?[]
Hello, I would think that describing McCain at the NATO summit in Strasbourg would be important - especially concerning the conflict in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, the appointment of a new Secretary General (I would believe that Anders Fogh Rasmussen would be designated as in OTL). - Realismadder 11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing English isn't this persons first language.[]
History is supposed to be written in the past tense. This is on top of the various misspellings. Go back to school. FireFootball 12:39, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to the user Lincolnnn, who is the main creator of this timeline?
- Realismadder 17:18, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes.FireFootball 02:12, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
- The subjunctive does make this a little disconcerting and hard to read, at least until you get used to it. But FireFootball, what do you hope to accomplish by saying something like that? It's not remotely constructive criticism; it's just nasty and rude. Knock it off. Benkarnell 04:23, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
- Must agree with Benkarnell. You have the right to express your opinion of Lincolnnn's spelling, but the last comment wasn't necessary. Despite the spelling it is readable, and it is a very timeline - I am glad to help him out with this timeline. Bad spelling or not, it is not so bad that you can't understand it, and had it not been for him, this (particular) timeline wouldn't exist. Realismadder 09:43, December 8, 2009 (UTC)
Just added your template for the timeline at the bottom of this page to make navigation through the timeline easier, other than that, very nice timeline VonGlusenburg 16:27, April 19, 2011 (UTC).
Anon Comment[]
Likewise I don't see how McCain as the candidate of the president's party in a time of economic collapse. I will now make a more controversial statement. I think he does worse without Palin. Palin helped build bridges to skeptical social conservatives. ~anon
...Read the blasted timeline. McCain is the candidate, as he was in real life. The PoD is long after that.
...People who were going to vote for him anyways. Not choosing Palin would have helped him with moderates, giving him a chance at winning, long-term. The initial boost would have been less, but the numbers would not have fallen so sharply after the fact, like in otl. And Pawlenty could have actually debated Biden.
Lordganon (talk) 03:10, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
It would have taken McCain nominating someone much further to the left than Pawlenty to drive away the social conservatives. Maybe if he used Lieberman or something, but Pawlenty wouldn't drive away any social conservatives. He'd probably draw them all the same, even if they are a bit less excited. Pawlenty is more conservative than McCain sometimes is. LurkerLordB (Talk) 03:33, November 20, 2012 (UTC)
K[]
I don't see how John McCain wins in 2008. The Republican President, George W. Bush, was very unpopular, and with it, the GOP itself. The GOP lost any chance of winning the 2008 election once the 2006 midterms happened. FURTHERMORE, McCain winning in 2012 is ASB. Remember, even George H. W. Bush did not give the GOP a 4th term in office, and keep in mind, Bush's approval ratings were at 91% in 1991. And while Hurricane Sandy might help him, it won't save him from defeat. Also, his appearence on the daily show would had turned off a lot of Republicans.
Want a McCain wins in 2008 scenario? Give Kerry Ohio in 2004 (Kerry loses popular vote but wins electoral), economy fucks up as per OTL (2004 was like 1976: A poisoned chalice), McCain wins GOP nomination in 2008 and wins the 2008 election,