Interesting write-up on John Kasich, worth a read

[Statistikhengst]

I think it's worth a read whether you are a Conservative, a Liberal or a Moderate.

Take a look:

Kasich?

Arnold Steinberg goes through a long list of stuff about the other 16 candidates, but when he does get to Kasich, the long-build up makes sense:

A deadlocked convention looking at an electoral vote strategy might opt for Kasich from Ohio, along with much younger Rubio from Florida as running mate, if an outsider like Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina is not chosen. Typically, the presidential nominee - not the vice president - turns out the base. And John Kasich must do a lot to become a draw.

Kasich has no automatic claim on any Republican base - establishment (Bush and Christie), conservative (Walker, Rubio, Cruz), evangelical (Huckabee, Santorum) or outsider (Trump, Carson, Fiorina). Right now, it seems hard to imagine Kasich getting the nomination through the primary process or in a brokered convention. But he is working New Hampshire effectively, and victory there or even a second place showing could yield momentum. In the first debate Kasich came across as honest, forthright and an adult.

At a time of volatile rebellion, will a safe electoral strategy work? Kasich is remarkably comfortable in his skin...as a career politician. However, the party's hardcore wanted no accommodation with Obamacare; Kasich accepted Medicaid expansion. Activists cringe at Common Core; Kasich accepted it. At times he sounds too much like a George W. Bush "compassionate conservative." One conservative Member of Congress told me, "John is a Nixon. But I guess that's better than a Bush." Kasich's public congeniality is an asset, but insiders say he's stubborn and temperamental. Conservative leaders have no rapport with Kasich and distrust him. Movement conservatives in Ohio complain they can't work with him.

On two important issues, Kasich has credibility and knowledge. As a U.S. Congressman, he was a fiscal hawk as Budget Committee Chairman, and a defense stalwart as Armed Services Committee Chairman. As a governor he not only can argue he is a proven manager who limited the budget, cut taxes, and presided over a growing economy, but he led his state's movement for criminal justice reform, which goes beyond the base. And he has low-key appeal to evangelicals without wearing religion on his sleeve. His family's working class background gives him the in-vogue populist twist.

But John Kasich must convince Republican primary voters that he is not just anotherMitch McConnell or John Boehner, both increasingly unpopular. And he also must convince general election voters that he's not a country club Republican. And he can do both simultaneously by taking on the establishment. He needs a Clinton "Sister Soulja" moment to tell off the Chamber of Commerce.

What I bolded, in both red and green, are the two points I consider to be the strongest points in an argument for a Kasich nomination, were it to happen.

I encourage you to read the entire article (it is long) before jumping in.

What say you? Could Kasich become the nominee via a deadlocked GOP convention in 2016, or simply win the absolute majority of delegates outright?

 

[RedTeamTex]

Nothing's impossible, but it would take a freakishly perfect storm for Gov. Kaisich to come out on top. At least 4 of his better-polling (qualified) competitors on the debate stage would have to make fatal campaign errors for a window to actually open for him, and the odds of that just aren't good.

Kasich on the ticket at all will risk deflating the party base, though I wouldn't be surprised if there's a cabinet post (HHS) for him, if he wants it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Nothing's impossible, but it would take a freakishly perfect storm for Gov. Kaisich to come out on top. At least 4 of his better-polling (qualified) competitors on the debate stage would have to make fatal campaign errors for a window to actually open for him, and the odds of that just aren't good.

Kasich on the ticket at all will risk deflating the party base, though I wouldn't be surprised if there's a cabinet post (HHS) for him, if he wants it.

I concur with you.

But in 1976, a man that Democrats derided as a mere peanut farmer jumped out from 3% in the pack to suddenly win over a bevy of candidates, almost as many as the GOP has now. His name: Jimmy Carter.

I'm not saying that this is going to happen with Kasich.

I am only saying that such a perfect storm is indeed possible.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Speaking of 1976, did you spot this one? 17 Democrats Ran for President in 1976. Can Today’s GOP Learn Anything From What Happened? - POLITICO Magazine

Although I think we have to note the difference between '76 and '16...the first election after Watergate, the public was in an historic consensus that Washington had to be punished with an 'idealistic outsider' gumming up the effectiveness and power of the presidency. The closest parallel would be 2008. '16 has some similarities, but I don't think enough. ('80 is a better match, which I hope is auspicious!)

 

[Statistikhengst]

Speaking of 1976, did you spot this one? 17 Democrats Ran for President in 1976. Can Today’s GOP Learn Anything From What Happened? - POLITICO Magazine

Although I think we have to note the difference between '76 and '16...the first election after Watergate, the public was in an historic consensus that Washington had to be punished with an 'idealistic outsider' gumming up the effectiveness and power of the presidency. The closest parallel would be 2008. '16 has some similarities, but I don't think enough. ('80 is a better match, which I hope is auspicious!)

Yes, I read it, only, it exaggerates. It claims that 17 dems ran, but by Iowa, a number of them were already long out of the field. It winnowed very fast.

 

[RedTeamTex]

Speaking of 1976, did you spot this one? 17 Democrats Ran for President in 1976. Can Today’s GOP Learn Anything From What Happened? - POLITICO Magazine

Although I think we have to note the difference between '76 and '16...the first election after Watergate, the public was in an historic consensus that Washington had to be punished with an 'idealistic outsider' gumming up the effectiveness and power of the presidency. The closest parallel would be 2008. '16 has some similarities, but I don't think enough. ('80 is a better match, which I hope is auspicious!)

Yes, I read it, only, it exaggerates. It claims that 17 dems ran, but by Iowa, a number of them were already long out of the field. It winnowed very fast.

If only they had SuperPacs!

 

[Statistikhengst]

And RedTeamTex - just some historical trivia.

On election night, 1980, on NBC, at 8 PM, Reagan was already at 252 electoral votes and Carter at that time had only won his home state of Georgia and also DC. At 8:15 PM, it was all over: Reagan landed at precisely 270 EV. The 1980 race was actually called EARLIER than the 1972 Nixon landslide race, in spite of the fact that Reagan won in 1980 by +9.74% and came in under 51% (50.75%), whereas Nixon won by +23.15 and landed at 60.67%. In 1980, Carter only won 6 states plus DC. That was that. The Reagan revolution began and would last for 12 years. At that time, the fact that the stations could not immediately call WV for Carter was a very, very ominous sign. 36 years later, Republican Mitt Romney wins WV by around +27, if I recall.

Both of Reagan's landslides were less impressive statistically than Nixon's 1972 win in terms of overall margin and topline percentages, and in terms of actual raw-votes, no one has yet surpassed Nixon's 1972 win, but there is no doubt in my mind that Reagan's landslides were the most evenly spread landslides ever, very, very consistent and extremely impressive in that regard. Key states like Michigan prove that point quite handily. Reagan is also the ONLY 2 term president since Eisenhower where Ohio was called immediately at poll closing time, both times. (This also happened with Clinton, but only in 1996). The difference is that in 1952 and 1956, not nearly as many people had TVs as today.

I started another thread here where I speculated as to whether 2016 will be a major NPV landslide and I gave my reasons for it, and although I personally would much prefer a D landslide to happen, I would also, without reservations, accept an R landslide, because it means, in either case, an unmistakeable mandate, and perhaps that is what we the people need after more than 20 years of gridlock.

 

[RedTeamTex]

The victory of Reagan amidst a 3rd party independent (Anderson?) in '80 reminds me of the current climate as well. But I'll refrain from reminiscing about the Gipper out of respect for your thread and Gov. Kasich, lol. We'll see if he manages to insert himself again. (Anyone have his campaign hotline?)

 

[SwimExpert]

What I bolded, in both red and green, are the two points I consider to be the strongest points in an argument for a Kasich nomination, were it to happen.

You forgot the third point. In a field where everyone else is a fucking idiot, voting for the only intelligent person with decent qualifications is the only smart thing for a voter to do.

Too bad most Americans are as big of idiots as the rest of the field.

 

[bendog]

Thanks. I think the movement conservatives will pick another candidate though. I saw Haley Barbour, the ultimate of the party establishment, touting Ben Carson today. LOL

 

[David_42]

If you really dig into kasich, you'll find he is not a moderate of any kind :/

 

[Statistikhengst]

What I bolded, in both red and green, are the two points I consider to be the strongest points in an argument for a Kasich nomination, were it to happen.

You forgot the third point. In a field where everyone else is a fucking idiot, voting for the only intelligent person with decent qualifications is the only smart thing for a voter to do.

Too bad most Americans are as big of idiots as the rest of the field.

Well, I'm looking for that sentence in the article....

 

[Seawytch]

I don't hate him...which means the GOP base will.

 

[SwimExpert]

What I bolded, in both red and green, are the two points I consider to be the strongest points in an argument for a Kasich nomination, were it to happen.

You forgot the third point. In a field where everyone else is a fucking idiot, voting for the only intelligent person with decent qualifications is the only smart thing for a voter to do.

Too bad most Americans are as big of idiots as the rest of the field.

Well, I'm looking for that sentence in the article....

Learn to think outside of what other people tell you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

What I bolded, in both red and green, are the two points I consider to be the strongest points in an argument for a Kasich nomination, were it to happen.

You forgot the third point. In a field where everyone else is a fucking idiot, voting for the only intelligent person with decent qualifications is the only smart thing for a voter to do.

Too bad most Americans are as big of idiots as the rest of the field.

Well, I'm looking for that sentence in the article....

Learn to think outside of what other people tell you.

Dude, I'm just having fun with you.

Of course, I had those thoughts too, but didn't want to be so, uh, crude...

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course, I had those thoughts too, but didn't want to be so, uh, crude...

Have you seen Donald Trump's polling numbers? Crude is the only thing Americans understand.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Of course, I had those thoughts too, but didn't want to be so, uh, crude...

Have you seen Donald Trump's polling numbers? Crude is the only thing Americans understand.

Yes, but that alone is interesting. He is hitting low to mid-thirties among GOP and Independents who are GOP leaning, but not winning in national polling.

But yes, crude does seem to be in for 2016....

 

[Toro]

I've had a few people the last few days mention Kasich as a candidate they are looking at, as am I.