The 2016 map if Kasich was the nominee?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Kasich wins a huge win 52-45

Kasich/Haley 362 52%
Clinton/Kaine 176 45%


Oregon Vote:

Kasich 47%
Hillary 46.8%
Stein  5%

Stein Spoils the state for Hillary and gives it to Kasich. Without Trump on the ballot Stein probably does much better and Johnson much worse. Also the PVI of Oregon in this scenario is +7 Dem , in OTL it was +8 Dem and I'm not doing a uniform swing either since Kasich only wins this state due to a third party presence.

OR would basically be the IN of 2016 , a solid state flipping in a wave.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Kasich wins a huge win 52-45

Kasich/Haley 362 52%
Clinton/Kaine 176 45%


Oregon Vote:

Kasich 47%
Hillary 46.8%
Stein  5%

Stein Spoils the state for Hillary and gives it to Kasich. Without Trump on the ballot Stein probably does much better and Johnson much worse. Also the PVI of Oregon in this scenario is +7 Dem , in OTL it was +8 Dem and I'm not doing a uniform swing either since Kasich only wins this state due to a third party presence.

OR would basically be the IN of 2016 , a solid state flipping in a wave.

Why do you have a weird fetish for ""moderate"" Republicans winning in a landslide? there's no way in hell this would've happened.

Kasich would definitely win trump’s states and also MN ME NH NV CO  and VA


I have him getting OR as I have Stein doing way better than she did in OTL

[OSR stands with Israel]

Kasich's appeal is vastly overrated. His policies were a retread of W Bush-McCain-Romney, which did not resonate with working class voters in the Rust Belt. He would have done better than Trump in the affluent suburbs (e.g. Philly main line, fairfield county CT, montgomery county MD, northern virginia, chicago north shore, san diego county, etc.) and maybe slightly better with Latinos but not enough to actually convert the blue states that Trump lost. And he would not have won WI, MI, or PA, not even sure if he would have won IA and NC.

He's a terrible campaigner. Utterly sanctimonious and unlikable. Hillary would have ripped him to shreds.

Bush actually did pretty well in the Upper Midwest/Rust Belt and if he faced a campaigner as bad as Hillary he wins WI , PA and maybe MN . If Trump faced a campaigner like Kerry 2004 he probably loses the Rust Belt as well

[OSR stands with Israel]

Kasich's appeal is vastly overrated. His policies were a retread of W Bush-McCain-Romney, which did not resonate with working class voters in the Rust Belt. He would have done better than Trump in the affluent suburbs (e.g. Philly main line, fairfield county CT, montgomery county MD, northern virginia, chicago north shore, san diego county, etc.) and maybe slightly better with Latinos but not enough to actually convert the blue states that Trump lost. And he would not have won WI, MI, or PA, not even sure if he would have won IA and NC.

He's a terrible campaigner. Utterly sanctimonious and unlikable. Hillary would have ripped him to shreds.

Bush actually did pretty well in the Upper Midwest/Rust Belt and if he faced a campaigner as bad as Hillary he wins WI , PA and maybe MN . If Trump faced a campaigner like Kerry 2004 he probably loses the Rust Belt as well

W Bush 04 barely won IA, lost MN, WI, MI, PA, and won OH by just 2, despite a recovering economy and being the incumbent POTUS after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Bush 04 was strong with Latinos and suburban whites but underperformed with white working class in the Midwest.

Not really as 80% of voters who believed the economy was the most important issue voted for Kerry and 52% of voters believed the economy was not good or poor.

https://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html