What would be different if McCain were President?

[giblets]

Would the economy be better or worse?
Would we still be in Iraq? Would Gaddafi still be around? Would Osama be dead? Would Israel be bombing Iran right now?
Would people with pre-existing conditions be left to die?
Would Obama be running again? Or Hillary?

If you're asking how McCain could possibly have been elected, let's say this is an alternate universe where the financial crisis hits in mid-November after McCain has won. Democrats control Congress but do not have anything approaching a supermajority.

[onodera]

Same.
Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
Yes.
No. No.

[snoopy369]

Same.
Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
Yes.
No. No.

This, exactly.

In general - the economy probably would be about the same because there aren't that many differences that would have a significant short-term effect. Maybe we wouldn't have had Stimulus 2, who knows; either way I generally feel Presidents have 0.01% effect on the economy. Democrats would've won McCain's Senate seat, when Sheriff Joe ran but was DQed at the last minute due to his citizenship papers not being in order.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

The rest of the world would have Palin to laugh at, and right now neither Hussein or Hillary are particularly funny. All in all, rest of the world lost out on some free entertainment from US.

[snoopy369]

Well, I doubt Bristol Palin could've been on Dancing With The Stars and whatnot if she'd been the Second Teenage Mother...

[Dauphin]

either way I generally feel Presidents have 0.01% effect on the economy.

How 'bout the stock market?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Would the economy be better or worse?

Worse. Given McCain would have attempted bipartisan solutions (read would have provided similar stimulus per Nancy's dictat) and things would not have improved. He would have reaped all the blame for failing economic strides thus further bolstering Dem ranks in Senate and House in the midterms. Thus even worse 'solutions' would be underway.

Would we still be in Iraq?

Yes as we continue to be today

Would Gaddafi still be around?

Yes. McCain would not have had the political capital to do anymore international interventions. Unlikely the Euro's would have done anything without the US leading from behind.

Would Osama be dead?

Yes

Would Israel be bombing Iran right now?

Maybe. But also likely McCain would have attempted to destabilize Iran back in 2009. The success or failure of that destabilization effort makes the question murky.

Would people with pre-existing conditions be left to die?

Yes like they are today.

Would Obama be running again? Or Hillary?

Probably both. The Dems have practically no one else to put up.

[Uncle Sparky]

After the 2009 assassination of McCain, President Palin would lead America into 新的黃金時代.
Since the US is now a province of China, the economy is much better, Iraq would be a province of China, Gaddafi would be grosvenor of the Chinese province of Libya, Osama would be dead, Israel and Iran would both be provinces of China, people with pre-existing conditions who belong to unregistered religions would be kept alive until their organs were needed for transplants, and Obama would still be running, but Hillary would have been taken out already in the new hunger game.

[DaShi]

Would the economy be better or worse? Worse.
Would we still be in Iraq? No
Would Gaddafi still be around? No
Would Osama be dead? No
Would Israel be bombing Iran right now? No
Would people with pre-existing conditions be left to die? Yes
Would Obama be running again? Or Hillary? Hillary

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Better. The US would be about 6 trillion dollars less in debt.
2. Iraq would have wrapped up by now.
3. Q-Daffy would still be amusing us.
4. Osama would be dead.
5. No.
6. No to either Hillary or Obama.

[snoopy369]

How 'bout the stock market?

0.01% effect in the long term. Stock markets are highly volatile but ultimately don't give a **** who is running things once they realize that they aren't raising capital gains taxes 500% or running businesses out of town, because they are the President and not really able to do much.

I think of the US President as sort of the Queen of England but here... and without the fun parades and royal boxes. Since the President can't actually pass legislation himself, he's only relevant to the economy when the congress is run by the other party (ie, Bush 1, or Clinton in the latter half). Otherwise when it's split or in his party, he's just a figurehead, unless he is also the leader of the party, which he often isn't. Romney certainly isn't going to be telling the House Republicans what to do, and Obama clearly has little power in the Democratic party.

[Kuciwalker]

I would be paid less.

[Dinner]

The only real difference is that the Republicans in Congress wouldn't have obstructed absolutely everything the way they've with Obama. It's been absolutely ridiculous the way Republicans have filibustered EVERYTHING including numerous bills they campaigned on and claimed to support. 97% of the bills since the day Obama came into office. They literally set out on day one saying "let's make sure absolutely nothing gets done" then blame the other guy for nothing getting done.

It's just criminal and completely disheartening that such anti-American tactics haven't been punished by voters and is proof Americans are a stupid people.

[Dinner]

1. Better. The US would be about 6 trillion dollars less in debt.

Delusional and stupid at the same time. It's nice to see some things never change, Ben.

[snoopy369]

Oh, I forgot the most important difference. Civ V would be way better. That one's obvious