If Kasich out-primaries Trump...

[Rjjr77]

Kasich wouldn't win his home state in a primary.

[Rjjr77]

If Ohio was one of the first states, or if Kasich is still legitimately seen as a contender by the time Ohio comes around, he'll win here by double-digits, maybe 65-35 or 60-40. He's still very popular among the state's Republicans, and independents in Ohio are used to voting in Republican primaries and supporting Republican politicians; he's even more popular with them.

Anyway, I can imagine Republican politicians underestimating the depth of antipathy to Trump in 2019-2020, thinking the popularity he has now is still around then if it isn't, and allowing Kasich to become the anti-Trump figure. And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up. (This is especially the case if there is a "more Trumpy" candidate running against Trump, which I think is very possible, if not outright likely). But in this scenario, like Ted Kennedy in 1980, he still ultimately falls short. It would take a truly exceptional figure, who is simultaneously a national hero and a master politician, to defeat an incumbent President in a primary, and John Kasich just isn't it. And I don't really think anyone in today's America is.

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

Kasich is term-limited, and wouldn't run again even if he weren't. Kasich (and, incidentally, also Justin Amash, which seems to get forgotten) is devoting his energy to a 2020 primary attempt.

I can't disagree more with Kasich's popularity. Based on that statement I guarantee you live in Columbus.

Kasich is poison to a lot of republicans in Ohio, his shenanigans at the RNC and McCain vote angered the base. Look at the ORP leadership race, half the GOP county chairs specifically went against Kasich. Look at the fighting in the legislature over Kasich's plans. He couldn't win a GOP primary head to head against trump (or I'd be mandel)

[Rjjr77]

If Ohio was one of the first states, or if Kasich is still legitimately seen as a contender by the time Ohio comes around, he'll win here by double-digits, maybe 65-35 or 60-40. He's still very popular among the state's Republicans, and independents in Ohio are used to voting in Republican primaries and supporting Republican politicians; he's even more popular with them.

Anyway, I can imagine Republican politicians underestimating the depth of antipathy to Trump in 2019-2020, thinking the popularity he has now is still around then if it isn't, and allowing Kasich to become the anti-Trump figure. And I can imagine Kasich winning some New England states where the primary voters are more moderate, and cauci where only the most motivated voters show up. (This is especially the case if there is a "more Trumpy" candidate running against Trump, which I think is very possible, if not outright likely). But in this scenario, like Ted Kennedy in 1980, he still ultimately falls short. It would take a truly exceptional figure, who is simultaneously a national hero and a master politician, to defeat an incumbent President in a primary, and John Kasich just isn't it. And I don't really think anyone in today's America is.

Wait till you see some polls for Ohio before you predict John Kasich running against Donald Trump. Republican incumbents are going to have tough times  in 2018 in swing states.

Kasich is term-limited, and wouldn't run again even if he weren't. Kasich (and, incidentally, also Justin Amash, which seems to get forgotten) is devoting his energy to a 2020 primary attempt.

I can't disagree more with Kasich's popularity. Based on that statement I guarantee you live in Columbus.

Well, I do

Kasich is poison to a lot of republicans in Ohio, his shenanigans at the RNC and McCain vote angered the base. Look at the ORP leadership race, half the GOP county chairs specifically went against Kasich. Look at the fighting in the legislature over Kasich's plans. He couldn't win a GOP primary head to head against trump (or I'd be mandel)

Recent polls in Ohio generally show Kasich with positive net approval among Republicans and very positive net approval among independents, and you and I both know that a very large number of independents vote in Republican primaries in Ohio.

We also know that Borges horribly mismanaged the Ohio GOP's finances, and just for that would've been defeated overwhelmingly in any other state; Timken's associations with Trumpism were the only reason it was even particularly close.

Uti2, we've been rehashing the same argument over and over again since before the general election. Can we agree to a truce, not responding to each other's posts? I don't think either of us is going to convince the other soon. We can look back after the next competitive Republican primary; there's a good chance that it'll shed some light on which of us was right.

By the way, I don't think there will be another election like this. This was an election similar to Goldwater's nomination in 1964. In 1964 you had a goldwater's movement which was more or less a marginal force until Ford lost the general election in 1976. The idea was that goldwater's wing was unelectable, once they realize it was electable, opposition to it dissipated, and successors to reagan/goldwater in general were deemed as less polarizing from then on. Any potential successors to Trump will also be toned down.

This is a difficult thing to say, since while the net swing in the general election from 2012 was not large, the swing among different groups was; perhaps 1/6 (this is a vague, gut-feeling estimate; you can quibble up or down) of both parties were exchanged. So it's difficult to say what the primary electorates will look like at the next open election. But it should be noted that voters under-45 were staunchly opposed to the two most recent Republican nominees (Romney and Trump), so I don't think either of those models is going to have a lot of strength moving forward.

It should also be kept in mind that, regardless of their ideological orientations, there will be occasional "celebrity candidates" able to appeal far beyond their natural base using their celebrity. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose political views are almost diametrically opposite Trump's, had a similar vastly inflated support. And I think, as we move forward into the Internet age, such celebrity candidates will become much more, not less, common. Mark Cuban running for the 2020 Democratic nomination would be an even greater break from history than Donald Trump running for the 2016 Republicans'.

Of course, none of this changes the actual data showing Trump winning self-identified moderates poll and exit poll after another (along with socially liberal republicans), the second choice preference data regarding Kasich, and Trump's underwater favorability uniquely in WI and of course NoVA v. the national GOP primary (something that was constantly pointed out in local WI media from day 1).

You're trying to retrofit the idea that all the numbers were stuck in a single range, while ignoring what the underlying trends demonstrated and leaving out MO (due to southern influences), but ignoring the Northeastern and Appalachian influences in MI and OH. Trump's numbers in the midwest overall did move with momentum that's why he received 39/40% in IL/MO, in line with 40% in NC.

Even 538 conducted another study on this subject which confirms what I'm saying, Trump won socially liberal republicans:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-trump-supporters-were-doing-before-trump/

Once again, I'm pointing at the results, and you're pointing at studies with high margins of error and selectively choosing what exit polls to look at. But, again, this is a debate that is going nowhere. We can't re-hold the 2016 primaries under different circumstances to test our theories.

*By the way, Carson was polling 2% within the margin of error of 0 in NH, that's why he was a non-entity there v. Christie, who was genuinely in 6th.

Right, but they originally planned to invite the top six national candidates, before changing the rules to allow in Christie.

Most recent poll I've seen concerning favorability, had Kasich under 50%  favorability with Trump voters. For an incumbent republican that is ridiculously, basically unheard of low. His approval only stayed over 50% due to a large approval from Hillary voters. I'm interested to see the morning call breakdown when it comes out, but Kasich at this point isn't popular enough with his own party to win

[Rjjr77]

As for the Borges finances, come on... That had nothing to do with bringing him down, and none of the county chairs who said a letter said it did, they all pointed to his unwavering support of Kasich however.