Independent Kasich campaign?

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

He's more likely to screw the Dems than the GOP if Gary Johnson 2016 is any guide.  An anti-establishment Indie trying to out populist Trump would hurt him the most.

Gary Johnson took more GOP voters than Democrat. Gary Johnson voters voted downballot Republican by a margin of 20% more than they did Democrat.

Jill Stein, however, probably took more Democrat voters than GOP.

[Skill and Chance]

He's more likely to screw the Dems than the GOP if Gary Johnson 2016 is any guide.  An anti-establishment Indie trying to out populist Trump would hurt him the most.

Gary Johnson took more GOP voters than Democrat. Gary Johnson voters voted downballot Republican by a margin of 20% more than they did Democrat.

Jill Stein, however, probably took more Democrat voters than GOP.

Yes, but they were the quintessential Clinton-Republican demographic.  Do you really think Johnson voters in PA-06, NC-13, AZ-09, etc. would have broken for Trump?  Johnson gave disgusted Romney voters an out and prevented Clinton from swinging enough of them in enough key places.  He's probably the single greatest reason Trump won.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

He's more likely to screw the Dems than the GOP if Gary Johnson 2016 is any guide.  An anti-establishment Indie trying to out populist Trump would hurt him the most.

Gary Johnson took more GOP voters than Democrat. Gary Johnson voters voted downballot Republican by a margin of 20% more than they did Democrat.

Jill Stein, however, probably took more Democrat voters than GOP.

Yes, but they were the quintessential Clinton-Republican demographic.  Do you really think Johnson voters in PA-06, NC-13, AZ-09, etc. would have broken for Trump?  Johnson gave disgusted Romney voters an out and prevented Clinton from swinging enough of them in enough key places.  He's probably the single greatest reason Trump won.

Perhaps, but all of this is just conjecture. We have literally no way of knowing what these voters would have voted (or if they would have even voted at all) if Gary Johnson was not on the ballot. Hillary was pretty toxic for a lot of republican voters. Every person that loses in a fairly close race with a third party loves to blame the third party for why they lost lol.

The only thing you could I guess say for sure is Gary Johnson's presence may have slightly improved the GOP in house/senate races, as maybe some of the Gary Johnson republican-leaning voters would not have voted had he not been on the ballot.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No wonder why people run as independents. They don't have to worry about any of that

Ballot access is the big obstacle for both third parties and independents.

Many "independent" candidates run slates of electors put up by minor parties with ballot access in a given state, provided that the particular party isn't something that would embarrass them.  Or they create parties in some states.  (New York requires candidates to be the candidate of a party.)  Florida actually allows someone to run a slate of electors not being pledged to an party.  

Truthfully, I don't see the rationale for a 3rd party candidacy by Kasich.  If he wants to be President, his only course of action is to flat-out challenge Trump in the primary.  There's no other way.

[Canis]

Kasich's best case scenario as a indy is 15% and winning Utah and maybe Alaska and Ohio it also depends a lot on his vp here's a list of good options for him to choose as a vp
Charlie Baker
Bruce Rauner
Susan Collins
Mitt Romney (probably one of the best choices)
Lisa  Murkowski
and of course John Hickenlooper
If I was Kasich I would probably ask Hickenlooper and if he said no then I would ask Mitt  

[krazen1211]

He's more likely to screw the Dems than the GOP if Gary Johnson 2016 is any guide.  An anti-establishment Indie trying to out populist Trump would hurt him the most.

Bill Weld noted that their campaign was stealing votes from Trump, at least according to their own internal polls.

Of course this braying doofus Kasich might go another way.

Link

Governor Weld said that Johnson-Weld internal polling showed that 75 percent of their voters would have voted for Donald Trump had they not been in the race.

[Mr. Morden]

Perhaps, but all of this is just conjecture. We have literally no way of knowing what these voters would have voted (or if they would have even voted at all) if Gary Johnson was not on the ballot.

There was an exit poll question on this (How would you have voted if it was a binary choice between Clinton and Trump?), but the results were given as what %age of Clinton 2-way voters voted 3rd party in real life and what %age of Trump 2-way voters voted 3rd party in real life.  But you can do algebra to get at the reverse question: What %age of 3rd party voters would have voted for Clinton or Trump in a hypothetical 2-way race?

The result is that ~63% of people who voted 3rd party claim that they would have stayed home in a 2-way race, while the remaining 37% were evenly split between Clinton and Trump.  There's no breakdown between Johnson and Stein voters though.  All 3rd party voters were lumped together.  My guess is that Stein voters were more likely to say Clinton while Johnson voters were a little more likely to say Trump.  But that assumes that people were honestly stating their intentions in this hypothetical world where their favored candidate wasn't an option.  It's possible that many of the 63% who said they would have stayed home wouldn't have actually stayed home, for example.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I can't see the underlying premise of an Independent Kasich campaign.

I can see the underlying premise of a Kasich challenge to Trump.  Kasich has always been a Republican; he was part of the House Republican Leadership when they moved into the majority in 1994, and was a viable Presidential candidate in 2000, after which he became a part of the FOX News stable with his show "Heartland".  Kasich could be a credible primary challenger to Trump, and one that the rest of the GOP might get behind. 

I'll say this:  If Kasich were the "Establishment" candidate instead of Bush and Rubio, Trump may not have prevailed.  That didn't happen, however.  Kasich was the strongest GE candidate in the polls early on, but the folks that mattered couldn't come around to see it.

[Mr. Morden]

I can't see the underlying premise of an Independent Kasich campaign.

I can see the underlying premise of a Kasich challenge to Trump.  Kasich has always been a Republican; he was part of the House Republican Leadership when they moved into the majority in 1994, and was a viable Presidential candidate in 2000, after which he became a part of the FOX News stable with his show "Heartland".

I agree that it makes more sense for Kasich to challenge Trump in the primary than to run as an independent.  My hunch, though, is that his teasing the possibility of leaving the party is actually a precursor to him ditching the party once Trump is renominated: Kasich runs in the 2020 GOP primary, but loses to Trump.  And then once he loses, he once again refuses to endorse Trump in the general election, but this time says that he's leaving the GOP altogether, because there's no place for him in a Trump-ified GOP.  He'll no longer be governor of Ohio at this point, so he'll be free to just follow his conscience, wherever it takes him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the right Republican primary challenger to Trump could get a decent amount of support from certain right-of-center pundits (like Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson), as well as now-retired Republican politicians like Mitt Romney (if he doesn't run for Senate) and Jeb Bush.  But I would be very surprised if very many *current* Republican politicians end up endorsing Kasich or any other potential primary challenger.  I guess it might happen, but endorsing a primary challenge to your party's incumbent president?  That seems like a big line to cross, and my gut says few will want to do it.  Much more common will be Republican politicians who remain neutral in the primaries, but then endorse the nominee in the general election.

As far as a primary challenger who is actually able to get a decent amount of support among regular Republican primary voters as opposed to elites....I'm not sure how much difference it makes who it is, as people might just see it as an anti-Trump protest vote, and they'll vote for the person or not depending on their opinion of Trump.  But to the extent that it does matter, I actually think Kasich would probably be a dud.  He seems determined to attack Trump from Trump's left on everything, and there just aren't that many "moderates" in the party today.  I think an Amash or a Paul might have a higher ceiling in a primary challenge to Trump, because they can attack Trump for the right and the center at the same time.

[Kingpoleon]

I can't see the underlying premise of an Independent Kasich campaign.

I can see the underlying premise of a Kasich challenge to Trump.  Kasich has always been a Republican; he was part of the House Republican Leadership when they moved into the majority in 1994, and was a viable Presidential candidate in 2000, after which he became a part of the FOX News stable with his show "Heartland".

I agree that it makes more sense for Kasich to challenge Trump in the primary than to run as an independent.  My hunch, though, is that his teasing the possibility of leaving the party is actually a precursor to him ditching the party once Trump is renominated: Kasich runs in the 2020 GOP primary, but loses to Trump.  And then once he loses, he once again refuses to endorse Trump in the general election, but this time says that he's leaving the GOP altogether, because there's no place for him in a Trump-ified GOP.  He'll no longer be governor of Ohio at this point, so he'll be free to just follow his conscience, wherever it takes him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the right Republican primary challenger to Trump could get a decent amount of support from certain right-of-center pundits (like Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson), as well as now-retired Republican politicians like Mitt Romney (if he doesn't run for Senate) and Jeb Bush.  But I would be very surprised if very many *current* Republican politicians end up endorsing Kasich or any other potential primary challenger.  I guess it might happen, but endorsing a primary challenge to your party's incumbent president?  That seems like a big line to cross, and my gut says few will want to do it.  Much more common will be Republican politicians who remain neutral in the primaries, but then endorse the nominee in the general election.

As far as a primary challenger who is actually able to get a decent amount of support among regular Republican primary voters as opposed to elites....I'm not sure how much difference it makes who it is, as people might just see it as an anti-Trump protest vote, and they'll vote for the person or not depending on their opinion of Trump.  But to the extent that it does matter, I actually think Kasich would probably be a dud.  He seems determined to attack Trump from Trump's left on everything, and there just aren't that many "moderates" in the party today.  I think an Amash or a Paul might have a higher ceiling in a primary challenge to Trump, because they can attack Trump for the right and the center at the same time.

Even Ted Cruz admits that moderate Republicans are not an endangered species amongst the voters.

[Mr. Morden]

Even Ted Cruz admits that moderate Republicans are not an endangered species amongst the voters.

It depends on what you mean by "moderate Republicans".  My point is simply that the bulk of the people who actually vote in Republican primaries think of themselves as "conservative", even if they don't all agree on what conservative means.

And so, in the event that enough Republicans sour on Trump to create an opening for a primary challenger to get even ~25% or more of the vote, some of those people who might otherwise be open to voting for a Trump challenger will probably be turned off if the challenger is spending all his time talking about things like Medicaid expansion, which sounds too much like the kind of Trump critique you get from Democrats.  They might be open to some attacks on Trump from the center, but only if it's paired with other attacks on Trump from the right, with arguments about how he's "betrayed conservatism".  Kasich's critiques of Trump so far sound too much like Democratic critiques for him to get enough traction in a Republican primary, IMHO.

[Rjjr77]

What's interesting is Kasich's rules changing minority party requirement thresholds will make it more difficult for him to run as an independent in Ohio