Kasich threatens to leave GOP

[uti2]

Kasich is really pissing me off. If he wanted to stop Trump, he should have dropped out after the New Hampshire primary and endorsed either Rubio or Cruz. Instead, his ego wouldn't let him quit, and he played a major role in Trump winning the GOP nomination.

Maybe Rubio shouldnt have done so badly in NH.


Kasich came in 2nd in NH not Rubio , due to Rubio self destructing at the NH debate

By the way, the idea that Kasich played a role in helping Trump is fallacious. If you're a pro-choice/pro-medicare republican Trump is the most moderate of the 3 (Trump,Rubio, Cruz), that's why Trump consistently won moderates in every single primary, with Kasich collecting the second highest number of Moderates.

If anyone played that role, it was Rubio, who took conservatives away from Cruz, he was the one who should've dropped out and endorsed Cruz after NH.

You also need to look at it from the perspective of Kasich/Jeb/Christie, they're experienced governors and relatively more moderate, forcing them to pick a choice between two hard-right inexperienced congressmen is absurd at face value, because for them, in some policy respects, Trump would actually be more preferable.

[uti2]

Kasich is really pissing me off. If he wanted to stop Trump, he should have dropped out after the New Hampshire primary and endorsed either Rubio or Cruz. Instead, his ego wouldn't let him quit, and he played a major role in Trump winning the GOP nomination.

Maybe Rubio shouldnt have done so badly in NH.


Kasich came in 2nd in NH not Rubio , due to Rubio self destructing at the NH debate

By the way, the idea that Kasich played a role in helping Trump is fallacious. If you're a pro-choice/pro-medicare republican Trump is the most moderate of the 3 (Trump,Rubio, Cruz), that's why Trump consistently won moderates in every single primary, with Kasich collecting the second highest number of Moderates.

If anyone played that role, it was Rubio, who took conservatives away from Cruz, he was the one who should've dropped out and endorsed Cruz after NH.

You also need to look at it from the perspective of Kasich/Jeb/Christie, they're experienced governors and relatively more moderate, forcing them to pick a choice between two hard-right inexperienced congressmen is absurd at face value, because for them, in some policy respects, Trump would actually be more preferable.

Actually I have to disagree with this, so much of the presidential primary is about momentum. Had Kasich dropped out after Nevada (as he should have) Rubio wins VA and MN on super tuesday. This entirely changes the narrative, Rubio was down double digits in polling on VA and his victory would have been the talk of the race, and would have shown trump as far more vulnerable. Had Carson also dropped out after NV as he should have, Cruz most likely wins Arkansas.  

If actors in this primary acted rationally Trumps momentum would have been severely blunted on Super Tuesday, and would have possibly changed the entire campaign narrative to show a more beatable trump. Kasich staying in the race gave trump several states.

Without Kasich, it would've been a very tight race in VA, but it's hard to call him a spoiler when rubio came in fourth place in a number of states behind Kasich.  Do you not understand the irony in hating Kasich for being moderate when his voters are almost exclusively moderates? If you do the math and give a two-thirds margin to him and one-third to Trump, it evens out.

Anyway, the only thing that would've done is improved Rubio's margins a bit to getting more delegates which would have additionally come at the expense of Cruz. It would've just tanked Cruz's momentum after Rubio's defeat in FL to offset any impact Kasich had on Cruz's chances on the Trump v. Cruz finale.

[uti2]

^also, all of those potential delegate redistributions wouldn't have mattered that much in the end as Trump would've taken WTA OH to offset potential losses elsewhere.

[uti2]

Kasich is really pissing me off. If he wanted to stop Trump, he should have dropped out after the New Hampshire primary and endorsed either Rubio or Cruz. Instead, his ego wouldn't let him quit, and he played a major role in Trump winning the GOP nomination.

Maybe Rubio shouldnt have done so badly in NH.


Kasich came in 2nd in NH not Rubio , due to Rubio self destructing at the NH debate

By the way, the idea that Kasich played a role in helping Trump is fallacious. If you're a pro-choice/pro-medicare republican Trump is the most moderate of the 3 (Trump,Rubio, Cruz), that's why Trump consistently won moderates in every single primary, with Kasich collecting the second highest number of Moderates.

If anyone played that role, it was Rubio, who took conservatives away from Cruz, he was the one who should've dropped out and endorsed Cruz after NH.

You also need to look at it from the perspective of Kasich/Jeb/Christie, they're experienced governors and relatively more moderate, forcing them to pick a choice between two hard-right inexperienced congressmen is absurd at face value, because for them, in some policy respects, Trump would actually be more preferable.

Actually I have to disagree with this, so much of the presidential primary is about momentum. Had Kasich dropped out after Nevada (as he should have) Rubio wins VA and MN on super tuesday. This entirely changes the narrative, Rubio was down double digits in polling on VA and his victory would have been the talk of the race, and would have shown trump as far more vulnerable. Had Carson also dropped out after NV as he should have, Cruz most likely wins Arkansas.  

If actors in this primary acted rationally Trumps momentum would have been severely blunted on Super Tuesday, and would have possibly changed the entire campaign narrative to show a more beatable trump. Kasich staying in the race gave trump several states.

Without Kasich, it would've been a very tight race in VA, but it's hard to call him a spoiler when rubio came in fourth place in a number of states behind Kasich.  Do you not understand the irony in hating Kasich for being moderate when his voters are almost exclusively moderates? If you do the math and give a two-thirds margin to him and one-third to Trump, it evens out.

Anyway, the only thing that would've done is improved Rubio's margins a bit to getting more delegates which would have additionally come at the expense of Cruz. It would've just tanked Cruz's momentum after Rubio's defeat in FL to offset any impact Kasich had on Cruz's chances on the Trump v. Cruz finale.

I don't hate him for being a moderate, I hate him for being a phony.

VA is in the bag for Rubio without Kasich, it was a tight race WITH kasich, and northern VA republicans were only voting Rubio or Kasich.

Again its a momentum argument, the election was over on Super Tuesday, and it was lost because Kasich and Carson cost Rubio and Cruz the narratives of big wins Super Tuesday. After that Trump became inevitable.

VA Republicans didn't really vote for Rubio in the first place for the margin to be that close. He only outperformed the polls because there were a ton of democratic crossovers (people who wanted to 'stop' Trump). Those who were willing to vote for him despite his conservatism did so. The others weren't able to stomach it.

Also, like I said, the net effect for various state delegate total reassignments would be offset by Trump's win of WTA OH. Rubio would've hit more delegate thresholds which would've mainly hurt Cruz, but that would've been the primary effect.

[uti2]

Kasich is really pissing me off. If he wanted to stop Trump, he should have dropped out after the New Hampshire primary and endorsed either Rubio or Cruz. Instead, his ego wouldn't let him quit, and he played a major role in Trump winning the GOP nomination.

Maybe Rubio shouldnt have done so badly in NH.


Kasich came in 2nd in NH not Rubio , due to Rubio self destructing at the NH debate

By the way, the idea that Kasich played a role in helping Trump is fallacious. If you're a pro-choice/pro-medicare republican Trump is the most moderate of the 3 (Trump,Rubio, Cruz), that's why Trump consistently won moderates in every single primary, with Kasich collecting the second highest number of Moderates.

If anyone played that role, it was Rubio, who took conservatives away from Cruz, he was the one who should've dropped out and endorsed Cruz after NH.

You also need to look at it from the perspective of Kasich/Jeb/Christie, they're experienced governors and relatively more moderate, forcing them to pick a choice between two hard-right inexperienced congressmen is absurd at face value, because for them, in some policy respects, Trump would actually be more preferable.

Actually I have to disagree with this, so much of the presidential primary is about momentum. Had Kasich dropped out after Nevada (as he should have) Rubio wins VA and MN on super tuesday. This entirely changes the narrative, Rubio was down double digits in polling on VA and his victory would have been the talk of the race, and would have shown trump as far more vulnerable. Had Carson also dropped out after NV as he should have, Cruz most likely wins Arkansas.  

If actors in this primary acted rationally Trumps momentum would have been severely blunted on Super Tuesday, and would have possibly changed the entire campaign narrative to show a more beatable trump. Kasich staying in the race gave trump several states.

Without Kasich, it would've been a very tight race in VA, but it's hard to call him a spoiler when rubio came in fourth place in a number of states behind Kasich.  Do you not understand the irony in hating Kasich for being moderate when his voters are almost exclusively moderates? If you do the math and give a two-thirds margin to him and one-third to Trump, it evens out.

Anyway, the only thing that would've done is improved Rubio's margins a bit to getting more delegates which would have additionally come at the expense of Cruz. It would've just tanked Cruz's momentum after Rubio's defeat in FL to offset any impact Kasich had on Cruz's chances on the Trump v. Cruz finale.

I don't hate him for being a moderate, I hate him for being a phony.

By the way, this is a particularly rich comment considering Kasich was the first republican to actually pay for ads against Trump back in 2015. Rubio didn't spend a dime or even attack Trump once until 2 weeks before he dropped out in a last minute spree of desperation.

If you're an ideological conservative, and you busily play footsie with someone you believe to not be so conservative and are willing to gamble the likelihood of that person potentially taking over the party (to boost your own odds in your own mind), you're not that ideological to begin with. Both Cruz & Rubio played this game. Go watch the CNBC debate in Oct. 2015, the moderators asked both to attack Trump point blank and both deflected and bashed the media and the moderators instead.

Kasich at least attacked Trump point-blank whenever he was asked to do so.

As for phoniness.....

[uti2]

Kasich is really pissing me off. If he wanted to stop Trump, he should have dropped out after the New Hampshire primary and endorsed either Rubio or Cruz. Instead, his ego wouldn't let him quit, and he played a major role in Trump winning the GOP nomination.

Maybe Rubio shouldnt have done so badly in NH.


Kasich came in 2nd in NH not Rubio , due to Rubio self destructing at the NH debate

By the way, the idea that Kasich played a role in helping Trump is fallacious. If you're a pro-choice/pro-medicare republican Trump is the most moderate of the 3 (Trump,Rubio, Cruz), that's why Trump consistently won moderates in every single primary, with Kasich collecting the second highest number of Moderates.

If anyone played that role, it was Rubio, who took conservatives away from Cruz, he was the one who should've dropped out and endorsed Cruz after NH.

You also need to look at it from the perspective of Kasich/Jeb/Christie, they're experienced governors and relatively more moderate, forcing them to pick a choice between two hard-right inexperienced congressmen is absurd at face value, because for them, in some policy respects, Trump would actually be more preferable.

Actually I have to disagree with this, so much of the presidential primary is about momentum. Had Kasich dropped out after Nevada (as he should have) Rubio wins VA and MN on super tuesday. This entirely changes the narrative, Rubio was down double digits in polling on VA and his victory would have been the talk of the race, and would have shown trump as far more vulnerable. Had Carson also dropped out after NV as he should have, Cruz most likely wins Arkansas.  

If actors in this primary acted rationally Trumps momentum would have been severely blunted on Super Tuesday, and would have possibly changed the entire campaign narrative to show a more beatable trump. Kasich staying in the race gave trump several states.

Without Kasich, it would've been a very tight race in VA, but it's hard to call him a spoiler when rubio came in fourth place in a number of states behind Kasich.  Do you not understand the irony in hating Kasich for being moderate when his voters are almost exclusively moderates? If you do the math and give a two-thirds margin to him and one-third to Trump, it evens out.

Anyway, the only thing that would've done is improved Rubio's margins a bit to getting more delegates which would have additionally come at the expense of Cruz. It would've just tanked Cruz's momentum after Rubio's defeat in FL to offset any impact Kasich had on Cruz's chances on the Trump v. Cruz finale.

I don't hate him for being a moderate, I hate him for being a phony.

By the way, this is a particularly rich comment considering Kasich was the first republican to actually pay for ads against Trump back in 2015. Rubio didn't spend a dime or even attack Trump once until 2 weeks before he dropped out in a last minute spree of desperation.

If you're an ideological conservative, and you busily play footsie with someone you believe to not be so conservative and are willing to gamble the likelihood of that person potentially taking over the party (to boost your own odds in your own mind), you're not that ideological to begin with. Both Cruz & Rubio played this game. Go watch the CNBC debate in Oct. 2015, the moderators asked both to attack Trump point blank and both deflected and bashed the media and the moderators instead.

Kasich at least attacked Trump point-blank whenever he was asked to do so.

As for phoniness.....

attacking trump makes him authentic?

Kasich is absolutely a fake. He runs as whatever benefits him. Kasich has been never trump simply because it benefits John Kasich. He has a history of taking self serving stances that are opposite to other stances hes taken in the past

If you're a conservative and you believe someone is a threat to conservatism, you're supposed to risk helping him by not attacking him to improve your own odds? The only outcome of that strategy is an increase in the likelihood of conservatism failing.

That's some bitter irony, Kasich did more to defend his ideology of moderate conservatism than Rubio/Cruz did for their respective ideologies, yet you're slamming Kasich for not being ideological enough....

[uti2]

Of the 3 (Cruz/Rubio/Kasich), Kasich did the most to defend his ideology against perceived threats, The former 2 were more concerned with trying to game the odds to improve their own chances at the expense of their purported values. In other words, Kasich actually acted in the most ideological fashion as a candidate of the 3. So, if you want to talk about principles, Kasich did the most to stand up for his principles on a relative basis.

If you want to attack Kasich's perceived hypocrisy, that perceived hypocrisy climbed to higher scales for the former 2.

[uti2]

In 2015 Kasich realized he needed to fill a moderate side of the republican party to be effective in the presidential primaries, due to better conservatives with actual track records of getting things done

What does Kasich believe? nothing. He's shifted his positions dozens of times in efforts to get himself elected. Kasich never thought trump was a "threat to his ideology" because Kasich has no ideology. Kasich thought Trump was going to LOSE so he fought trump so he could be the heir apparent in the primaries in 2020, as he was "against trump the whole time"

You see Kasich as this moderate conservative warrior, when he isn't. hes a self serving jerk, and thats how people in OHIO see him  

Actually for your first point, it's more like rubio/cruz had no records and no accomplishments so they attempted to demagogue on their lack of record. In the case of Cruz, at least he's more consistent with regards to his tea party roots vs. rubio (but you hit Kasich for these inconsistencies, while not mentioning Rubio). If you want to reference Obama, Cruz better fits the mold of Obama who attempted to position himself as a progressive grassroots candidate.

Kasich was filling a niche, as you explain, he positioned himself to appeal to moderate voters, his category also had Christie & Jeb. There are different factions of the GOP. If you go by that line of thinking, then it should also be accepted that Rubio's role in the race served to split conservatives from Cruz. Rubio split the vote of the Conservative Niche that was dominated by Cruz.

Your argument would work better if it was invoked to defend Cruz rather than Rubio, to be fair. Glass Houses and all that.

[uti2]

You see Kasich as this moderate conservative warrior, when he isn't. hes a self serving jerk, and thats how people in OHIO see him  

Do you see how easily this quote can also be applied to Rubio? You can't bash Kasich for playing the same game even if the premises of this statement are true.

You see Rubio as this conservative warrior, when he isn't. hes a self serving jerk, and thats how people in FLORIDA see him  

In comparison, at least in Texas, no one thinks Cruz isn't a "conservative warrior". Cruz has the reputation of being too much of a "warrior" if anything.

[uti2]

You see Kasich as this moderate conservative warrior, when he isn't. hes a self serving jerk, and thats how people in OHIO see him  

Do you see how easily this quote can also be applied to Rubio? You can't bash Kasich for playing the same game even if the premises of this statement are true.

You see Rubio as this conservative warrior, when he isn't. hes a self serving jerk, and thats how people in FLORIDA see him  

In comparison, at least in Texas, no one thinks Cruz isn't a "conservative warrior". Cruz has the reputation of being too much of a "warrior" if anything.

Many of us actually think of Rubio as a good person. He’s extremely nice in person and seems to be working for the good of Florida and America.

Which is also how Kasich supporters feel about Kasich.....but the idea that you think you can shame Kasich supporters for their candidate behaving in a similar fashion is absurd.

[uti2]

In 2015 Kasich realized he needed to fill a moderate side of the republican party to be effective in the presidential primaries, due to better conservatives with actual track records of getting things done

What does Kasich believe? nothing. He's shifted his positions dozens of times in efforts to get himself elected. Kasich never thought trump was a "threat to his ideology" because Kasich has no ideology. Kasich thought Trump was going to LOSE so he fought trump so he could be the heir apparent in the primaries in 2020, as he was "against trump the whole time"

You see Kasich as this moderate conservative warrior, when he isn't. hes a self serving jerk, and thats how people in OHIO see him  

Actually for your first point, it's more like rubio/cruz had no records and no accomplishments so they attempted to demagogue on their lack of record. In the case of Cruz, at least he's more consistent with regards to his tea party roots vs. rubio (but you hit Kasich for these inconsistencies, while not mentioning Rubio). If you want to reference Obama, Cruz better fits the mold of Obama who attempted to position himself as a progressive grassroots candidate.

Kasich was filling a niche, as you explain, he positioned himself to appeal to moderate voters, his category also had Christie & Jeb. There are different factions of the GOP. If you go by that line of thinking, then it should also be accepted that Rubio's role in the race served to split conservatives from Cruz. Rubio split the vote of the Conservative Niche that was dominated by Cruz.

Your argument would work better if it was invoked to defend Cruz rather than Rubio, to be fair. Glass Houses and all that.

Rubio had several accomplishments, from senate intel committee to being the only senator to actually do anything to stop Obamacare.

Kasich, a one time tea party conservative demagogue ran to the LEFT of JEB! and Christie, again the biggest problem with Kasich is he is a self serving phony.

Say what you want about Cruz and Rubio, but they do have stances they havent changed, I can't find a stance Kasich hasn't flipped on at one point in his career.  

If obstruction is to be an accomplishment, then Cruz had the biggest accomplishments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rkkRSxZJPA

Besides this most prominent example, there are numerous examples of rubio's cynical calculations - 2 days after the NH debate where rubio was on record of supporting drafting women he flipped his position after he found the position didn't poll well.

What a great use of the Senate Intel Committee. He also flipped on his position of authorizing air strikes on Syria as another example, at least Cruz remained consistent on that front.

[uti2]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

[uti2]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

 defend Kasich rather than deflecting to Rubio.

Kasich has decades of flip flops, you point out the fact that he flipped on drafting females?

I respect Rubio 100x over Kasich, because he's been less of a disgusting self serving person, is that because hes been office for a shorter time? maybe? even then I'd probably STILL respect Rubio more because at the end of the day hes actually a nice person unlike kasich

For what it's worth, you pretty much prove the point I made in my earlier post with that comment. The subtext of this comment also demonstrates how rubio ripped ideological conservative voters away from people who would've otherwise voted Cruz on the basis of ideological, rather than superficial characteristics.

Actually for your first point, it's more like rubio/cruz had no records and no accomplishments so they attempted to demagogue on their lack of record. In the case of Cruz, at least he's more consistent with regards to his tea party roots vs. rubio (but you hit Kasich for these inconsistencies, while not mentioning Rubio). If you want to reference Obama, Cruz better fits the mold of Obama who attempted to position himself as a progressive grassroots candidate.

Kasich was filling a niche, as you explain, he positioned himself to appeal to moderate voters, his category also had Christie & Jeb. There are different factions of the GOP. If you go by that line of thinking, then it should also be accepted that Rubio's role in the race served to split conservatives from Cruz. Rubio split the vote of the Conservative Niche that was dominated by Cruz.

Your argument would work better if it was invoked to defend Cruz rather than Rubio, to be fair. Glass Houses and all that.

[uti2]

Heres Kasich's problems:
He isn't anything that people believe him to be, he isn't a nice guy, he isnt a moderate, he isn't a conservative, and he hasnt really accomplished anything.

People point to a balanced budget that never happened, or an economic boom in Ohio that never happened.  Hes a jerk, hes a flip flopper who has waffled on everything every cycle, hes engaged in shady and ridiculous maneuvers, and he couldn't win a republican primary in his home state for any office right now.

Rubio flipflopping days after a debate to a new position on drafting women is the definition of waffling, which is why it doesn't make sense to defend him in the context of attacking Kasich, as he's vulnerable to similar criticisms. I've documented  the shady maneuvers & positioning of the other candidates, and when you respond by invoking an ideological argument, again, that ideological defense works more when you're trying to defend Cruz, but not so much Rubio.

You're trying to point out Kasich's perceived hypocrisies and ideological inconsistencies, that's fine, but a grassroots candidate providing the contrast to that is someone more like Cruz.

 defend Kasich rather than deflecting to Rubio.

Kasich has decades of flip flops, you point out the fact that he flipped on drafting females?

I respect Rubio 100x over Kasich, because he's been less of a disgusting self serving person, is that because hes been office for a shorter time? maybe? even then I'd probably STILL respect Rubio more because at the end of the day hes actually a nice person unlike kasich

For what it's worth, you pretty much prove the point I made in my earlier post with that comment. The subtext of this comment also demonstrates how rubio ripped ideological conservative voters away from people who would've otherwise voted Cruz on the basis of ideological, rather than superficial characteristics.

Actually for your first point, it's more like rubio/cruz had no records and no accomplishments so they attempted to demagogue on their lack of record. In the case of Cruz, at least he's more consistent with regards to his tea party roots vs. rubio (but you hit Kasich for these inconsistencies, while not mentioning Rubio). If you want to reference Obama, Cruz better fits the mold of Obama who attempted to position himself as a progressive grassroots candidate.

Kasich was filling a niche, as you explain, he positioned himself to appeal to moderate voters, his category also had Christie & Jeb. There are different factions of the GOP. If you go by that line of thinking, then it should also be accepted that Rubio's role in the race served to split conservatives from Cruz. Rubio split the vote of the Conservative Niche that was dominated by Cruz.

Your argument would work better if it was invoked to defend Cruz rather than Rubio, to be fair. Glass Houses and all that.

Rubio actually has a strong conservative record of his own, which you ignore, the man has a lifetime 81% Heritage action score, making him actually one of the most conservative US Senators.

I'd like to point out Rubio voted to have women eligible for the draft btw, as he said he would

Actually, his Heritage ranking is 73%.

[uti2]

his lifetime heritage action score is 81%

His overall rank is at 15. As a comparison, Hillary in 2008 was ranked as the 16th most liberal.