Looking back, do you think these would have been better picks for the Republican party?
Thanks everyone for the extremely informative answers. Its always pleasant to converse with reasonable people.
High Roller
Favorite Answer
I don't think any republican pick could have beaten Obama. He ran a brilliant campaign and I don't think Huckabee or Romney could have matched his strategy. McCain's problems were his age and his choice for VP. The fall in the stock market and the overall failing economy didn't help him either. Like Hillary Clinton, this was McCain's last shot at the presidency and it just wasn't in the cards for him.
Anonymous
Huckabee would suffer from a similar effect as Sarah Palin. He is way to the right and would turn away a lot of the independent voters. Romney on the other hand would have an incredibly better shot at winning the presidency than McCain. First Romney is much younger and looks presidential. Most importantly though, Romney is an expert in business and economics. He could have been a shining star for the party when the stock market crashed. McCain doesn't know anything about economics. The only other viable candidate for the nomination was Giuliani but his campaign was a joke so I don't think he would have been a good pick. I personally liked Ron Paul the most and I was thinking about switching my party affiliation to Republican if he was doing well in the primaries. Unfortunately after New Hampshire, it was clear he wasn't going to win. I guess his message didn't resonate enough with the republican party which makes sense because it seems like it has a great majority of social conservatives.
Bostonian In MO
Romney would probably have been the best choice, all things considered.
Mike Huckabee would have pandered to the far right-wing religious base but moderate Republicans would not have accepted him. Additionally, his support for the so-called "Fair Tax" relegated him to the lunatic fringe of the party and politics in general. That was Ron Paul's downfall as well.
Rudy Giuliani was a RINO and never would have been accepted by the party. And his primary campaign was even more disjointed than McCain's run was; he would have been a joke.
In the end though, the Republican "brand name" was so toxic thanks to George W Bush that NO Republican could have possibly won. The Republicans had created the "Perfect Storm" such that there was no chance of victory -- and watching them eating their own in the aftermath is pretty conclusive evidence of that fact.
Blue hills Granny
IF Romney and Huckabee were better choices, then why didn't one them win over McCain in the Republican Primary?? THe Republican voters choose McCain as their Presidential candidate .. not Romney or Huckabee ..because they would have been been scrutinized and their pasts would have been dug up, they each had tons of baggage! This would be fatal to them both.. McCain had the least amount of ghosts hanging in his closet But like the old saying goes, Coulda woulda shoulds .. just does not make it so .. We now have the best man elected for this nearly impossible position
HC Visigoth
REVISED (realizing you're talking about the top slot, not veep):
Boy, hard to say.
For the general election, you can't just think about your base, or you lose. You need a ticket that appeals to all of America, or at least more of America than your opponent.
Both had issues with their religion. Huckabee was on record as saying he thought the Constitution should be changed to align more with the Bible, which I think is too extreme for the general populace. Romney was possibly, not to be too impolite, too Mormon. Maybe this wasn't so much an issue -- you may have noticed our President-elect broke some glass as far as breaking some old preconceptions goes-- but would the GOP voters have thought the same way?