I think that's a NeoGAF Gold feature?
This would explain it!
I thought the opposing party winning mid-terms was usually a thing (at least when you weren't at war)?
Not always like this, no. Remember, Dems are less likely to vote in midterms. 2006 was a direct referendum on Iraq.
See, I guess I always remember McCain pre 2008 primaries as a moderate who was heavily liked across the board (Kerry thought about him as a VP pick in 2004 IIRC), and was seen as the Anti-Bush because of how harsh Bush was against him in the 2000 primaries. Along with a fairly hawkish Democrat HRC - I was worried that a moderate Democrat vs a moderate Republican who would be able to avoid the Bush stink because of his moderate stances (at the time) and publicly known political battles against GWB could end poorly.
Sure, this is true of McCain. But it doesn't matter, he was a Republican and in 2008 Republicans were toxic. Remember, GWB didn't even speak at the convention! The sitting President!
The Dems took even more House Seats and even took 60 seats in the Senate, which was unheard of at the time.
The voters were never voting a GOPer in 2008. I'll agree that Obama inspired more promise for the future than Hillary ever would have but it wouldn't matter. Nothing could avoid the Bush stink.
Part of this is definitely colored by watching Kerry lose to GWB and watching the Dems botch that presidential race. I definitely thought Clinton / the Dem machine at the time could similarly botch a race again. We had spent a lot of energy trying to show everyone how important the 2004 election was going to be (because of SCOTUS replacements); and we had been mostly ignored. Basically I was worried a non-Obama candidate would lead to a similar situation that we had in 2004, an election we should have won but due to voter apathy (economy) + party incompetence + not enough differentiation between the candidates, we would end up somehow pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.
this is all wrong. In 2004, GWB was popular. I knew GWB was winning pretty easily that year. The Dems did not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It would have been an upset. The economy at the time was at an upswing, we were at war which at the time was popular, and the the republican was an incumbent.
Democrats deluded themselves into thinking they'd win because the 2000 election was stolen in their eyes and that voters would correct that. But voters were mostly fine with GWB. Remember, the people that were born in the late 80s and 90s didn't start voting yet. It was a different voter base than today. There were people with Bush Derangement Syndrome that believed they were the majority but in reality they are no different than those with ODS today.
But hey, if I'm wrong (and you do make some darn good points), I am super duper happy to be wrong.
You are
honestly, I think we'd be better off had HIllary won and lasted 8 years with Obama now coming in. Obama should have been a transformative candidate. But he wasn't as much as he should have been. Not for a lack of effort but because the GOP went absolutely batshit insane when he took office. Had Clinton took office, I don't think it would have been so bad. I think being a Clinton, despite the disdain they have for that family, it would have gone differently. With the GOP working with her a bit, I think it would have set the stage for Obama now. And Obama would have had a different reaction in 2016 than in 2008 (he won because of the crisis only, not America changing!) and would have been able to truly make a Reagan size shift in this country.
Of course, at the time, I believed Obama/Hillary would be a 1 term President. I thought the economy would not recover fast enough. I thought the GOP would argue "see, we tried it and it failed, let's go back to our way." Instead, the GOP went so batshit insane that Obama could win again (something I never predicted in 2008). And they probably don't for Hillary so without that guarantee I'm glad Obama got it.
But in a perfect world I would reverse the two Presidencies.
