Would Connecticut have flipped Republican if the nominees were Kasich V Clinton?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:22:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Would Connecticut have flipped Republican if the nominees were Kasich V Clinton?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Would Connecticut have flipped Republican if the nominees were Kasich V Clinton?  (Read 7449 times)
NewEnglandRepublican
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 12, 2018, 01:28:21 PM »
« edited: May 12, 2018, 01:32:15 PM by NewEnglandRepublican »

I have a strong feeling that if the nominees were Kasich Vs. Clinton that Connecticut could have flipped ,or have been razor thin, like it was in Minnesota with Trump v Hillary. I say this because Kasich reminds me a lot of an HW Bush type, who won CT in 88 and won Fairfield county in 92. Kasich also seems to appeal a lot to socially moderate/liberal people who are center right economically;  in other words very suburbanite. With that, you have Fairfield county, the most populous county in CT that fits that bill perfectly. If you look at 04 and 12 it voted more R then the state as a whole and were 47% R (04) and 44% R (12). However, with Hillary's baggage and distain among most people, even people who held their nose and voted for her when faced with Trump, I can make the assumption, with great faith, that if given the option between Clinton and Kasich that Fairfield county inhabitants would have gone heavily for Kasich. However, would you say that it would have been enough to flip the entire state? I know Litchfield would be Republican as well? But would Kasich have been as strong in New Haven and Hartford Counties?
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2018, 01:49:37 PM »

No. Period.
Logged
NewEnglandRepublican
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2018, 01:51:27 PM »

Thanks for explaining
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2018, 03:10:53 PM »


There is nothing to explain. Connecticut is a safe Democratic state. Even an unpopular governor won his re-election in a GOP tsunami year. I'm not even sure if Kasich would really have performed better than Trump, who won CT's primary in an unexpected landslide. Trump, so I think, is probably the best-fitting Republican for that state, and Clinton still won it by almost 14%.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2018, 04:16:56 PM »

The problem that Kasich would have, is that a lot of his popularity is because of the fact that he was not the nominee and that he was against Trump.

If you make him the nominee though, the election then becomes about him and his positions and not about Trump and his statements, and his locker room talk.

Suddenly you hear constantly about Kasich being super pro-life for example and the bill he signed in Ohio to restrict abortion, his attempt to curtail unions and so on. This would mean that he probably performs about the same as Romney.

Its ironic that you should mention Bush 41, because it was actions during the Bush 41 administration, breaking his promise on taxes, the recession and the appointment of Clarence Thomas, as well as the Democrats running Bill Clinton, that basically flipped secular White Collar voters to the Democrats. Throw in 30 years of ingrained partisanship and the GOP venturing even further down that road, even with Kasich, he probably maxes out in the low to mid 40's at best.

He might do somewhat better with high end secular voters, but he wouldn't do as well with working class whites as Trump did in CT-05 and CT-02.
Logged
NewEnglandRepublican
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2018, 05:17:24 PM »

The problem that Kasich would have, is that a lot of his popularity is because of the fact that he was not the nominee and that he was against Trump.

If you make him the nominee though, the election then becomes about him and his positions and not about Trump and his statements, and his locker room talk.

Suddenly you hear constantly about Kasich being super pro-life for example and the bill he signed in Ohio to restrict abortion, his attempt to curtail unions and so on. This would mean that he probably performs about the same as Romney.

Its ironic that you should mention Bush 41, because it was actions during the Bush 41 administration, breaking his promise on taxes, the recession and the appointment of Clarence Thomas, as well as the Democrats running Bill Clinton, that basically flipped secular White Collar voters to the Democrats. Throw in 30 years of ingrained partisanship and the GOP venturing even further down that road, even with Kasich, he probably maxes out in the low to mid 40's at best.

He might do somewhat better with high end secular voters, but he wouldn't do as well with working class whites as Trump did in CT-05 and CT-02.


Yes, but the reason I mentioned 41 is because he actually managed to still retain Fairfield County in the 92 election, though by a plurality (Perot). Also, how about the factor of him being overwhelmingly popular in his state pre-Trump winning 60% in the 2014 election. Going as far as winning Cuyahoga county, a Democratic stronghold, and with that 60% meaning many Democrats crossing over. Now yes, I do know that gubernatorial elections behave differently compared to their presidential counterparts, but I do think he could've campaigned on that record of bi-partisan support in his state and have that be a winning strategy.
Logged
NewEnglandRepublican
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2018, 05:26:09 PM »

Also, when you mention social issues like abortion I'm not convinced that would drag his campaign down as much in CT, as perhaps a conservative approach to LGBT issues would have. In other words, I think Kasich being more socially liberal on LGBT would be a benefit for him. Additionally, Kasich banned late term abortion, which from the polls I've seen has a great deal of support in the general public. It's not as if CT is like the Bay Area who think late term abortion is pretty rad or whatever.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2018, 07:00:47 PM »

The problem that Kasich would have, is that a lot of his popularity is because of the fact that he was not the nominee and that he was against Trump.

If you make him the nominee though, the election then becomes about him and his positions and not about Trump and his statements, and his locker room talk.

Suddenly you hear constantly about Kasich being super pro-life for example and the bill he signed in Ohio to restrict abortion, his attempt to curtail unions and so on. This would mean that he probably performs about the same as Romney.

Its ironic that you should mention Bush 41, because it was actions during the Bush 41 administration, breaking his promise on taxes, the recession and the appointment of Clarence Thomas, as well as the Democrats running Bill Clinton, that basically flipped secular White Collar voters to the Democrats. Throw in 30 years of ingrained partisanship and the GOP venturing even further down that road, even with Kasich, he probably maxes out in the low to mid 40's at best.

He might do somewhat better with high end secular voters, but he wouldn't do as well with working class whites as Trump did in CT-05 and CT-02.


Yes, but the reason I mentioned 41 is because he actually managed to still retain Fairfield County in the 92 election, though by a plurality (Perot). Also, how about the factor of him being overwhelmingly popular in his state pre-Trump winning 60% in the 2014 election. Going as far as winning Cuyahoga county, a Democratic stronghold, and with that 60% meaning many Democrats crossing over. Now yes, I do know that gubernatorial elections behave differently compared to their presidential counterparts, but I do think he could've campaigned on that record of bi-partisan support in his state and have that be a winning strategy.

I was pro-Kasich from 2013 until late 2015 and yes he did have some bipartisan credentials. However, when it comes to the 2014 results remember that 2014 was the lowest turnout by percent since 1942. His win is not that impressive when you look at the actual numbers. Trump got almost 1 million more votes in 2016 than Kasich got in 2014.

2016
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   2,841,006   51.31%   18
   Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   2,394,169   43.24%   0

2014
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,944,848   63.64%
   Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   1,009,359   33.03%

2010
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,889,186   49.04%
   Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   1,812,059   47.04%


In 2014, Kasich only gained 60,000 votes from his 2010 totals. The Democrats lost 800,000 to low turnout and because Fitzgerald was a disaster, but Kasich didn't gain them or win them.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2018, 07:11:02 PM »

Also, when you mention social issues like abortion I'm not convinced that would drag his campaign down as much in CT, as perhaps a conservative approach to LGBT issues would have. In other words, I think Kasich being more socially liberal on LGBT would be a benefit for him. Additionally, Kasich banned late term abortion, which from the polls I've seen has a great deal of support in the general public. It's not as if CT is like the Bay Area who think late term abortion is pretty rad or whatever.

Kasich wouldn't shed as much ground as Trump did in 2016 in high end areas yes, but it is one thing to hold what you already have, it is quite another to get people who have not voted for a Republican in 30 years or more likely have never voted Republican (since it was their parents voting for Ford, Reagan and Bush) to then cross over and voter Republican at levels high enough to flip in a presidential year.

I think he could get to 45% but he has a hard time getting to 50%.
Logged
Anzeigenhauptmeister
Hades
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,373
Israel


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2018, 07:24:16 PM »

2014
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,944,848   63.64%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   1,009,359   33.03%

Wasn't Edward FitzGerald involved in some kind of scandal?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2018, 07:32:13 PM »
« Edited: May 12, 2018, 07:36:56 PM by People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee »

2014
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,944,848   63.64%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   1,009,359   33.03%

Wasn't Edward FitzGerald involved in some kind of scandal?

Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_FitzGerald#2014_Gubernatorial_candidacy
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
NewEnglandRepublican
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2018, 07:51:36 PM »

What would it take then for a Republican to flip CT? Would it only happen if a third party "out left" the Democrats and took votes? Then is that the only way a  Republican could win; is through a plurality? Is there any way they could get an absolute majority?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2018, 10:24:25 PM »

What would it take then for a Republican to flip CT? Would it only happen if a third party "out left" the Democrats and took votes? Then is that the only way a  Republican could win; is through a plurality? Is there any way they could get an absolute majority?

Well anything is possible with enough time and shifts in the map, which is constantly in flux. There is no such thing as a stationary allignment, because the map is constantly changing and the parties slowly adapting in response. No less than Trump himself is a part of this long term process.

I can lay out a scenario that eventually leads to CT being competitive in say 20 years time, but it would take a few hours. Over the next 20 years the GOP has to come to terms with his younger membership, which is far more libertarian on social issues and far more non-interventionist on foreign policy.


But certainly a three way scenario would be the best bet as it stands right now, assuming the Republican is someone who can get to 45%.
Logged
NewEnglandRepublican
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2018, 11:21:15 PM »

Whats the short and sweet scenario?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2018, 01:15:24 AM »


Well here is a simplified outline. But of course at any point some aspect of this could be altered and thus yield a different outcome, like say Trump or perhaps Pence somehow winning in 2020, really alters this scenario drastically.


1. Democrats win 2018 through a combination of traditional swing voters, seniors softening up and elasticity in the Midwest. Basically 2006 redux.

2. Democrats win 2020 on the backs of millennials, minorities and higher turnout, while Trump is able to regain some of the lost ground (from 2018) among seniors, midwesterners and more traditional independents, it is not enough. 2008 redux basically, but with fewer working class whites and more minorities and young voters. Lets just assume it is Kamala Harris.

3. Republican nominate a hardcore conservative in 2024, and Harris crushes them handily.

4. Republicans gain ground in 2026 but probably cannot regain Congress unless the economy is bad at that point. Most of the gains are skewed towards less diverse states though by this point a lot of variables are in play, depending on who this Democratic President is. Harris is the easiest in some ways because it is likely to expect trend patterns similar to Obama but with the biggest differential that every age cohort is 8 to 12 years older and thus Millennials constitute enough of those in peak voting age to prevent a 2010.

5. 2028 brings what I have termed the mild mannered Midwestern Governor seeking to merge both a business oriented traditional Republicanism with some kind of trade/immigration populism to bring solid numbers in remaining white Suburbs (Indy, WOW, Cleveland, Pittsburgh) while also running up the numbers Trump style in rural areas, farm/mining/lumbering regions. However I expect this person to narrowly lose since by this point the Dems have overcome the EC disadvantage by flipping GA, TX and FL, so even unifying the Midwest isn't enough.

6. By 2032 Republicans are thus desperate to win and willing to try anything and voters by this point have had it with the Democrats being in charge. Republicans nominate someone wouldn't have been fathomable as the nominee just a cycle prior and the map looks completely different then it does now yielding a narrow GOP win.

Ironically, Kasich could have pulled off number 5 himself in 2016 had he not become just another Jeb Bush, and such would certainly be victorious in that year since Texas and GA are still Republican, and FL is still competitive. 
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,352


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2018, 01:18:35 AM »

Depends on if Stein can get more than 5% of the vote or not
Logged
here2view
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,683
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.13, S: -1.74

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2018, 11:55:58 AM »


There is nothing to explain. Connecticut is a safe Democratic state. Even an unpopular governor won his re-election in a GOP tsunami year. I'm not even sure if Kasich would really have performed better than Trump, who won CT's primary in an unexpected landslide. Trump, so I think, is probably the best-fitting Republican for that state, and Clinton still won it by almost 14%.
Logged
MillennialModerate
MillennialMAModerate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,006
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2018, 01:35:27 PM »

I actually think it would have flipped to GOP.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,352


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 13, 2018, 02:13:43 PM »

These are the following % Kasich would need to win by nationally to win the following states:

PA/FL/WI: He wins even if he loses the popular vote by 1-2 points
New Hampshire/ Colorado: Tied Popular Vote
Michigan: 1 Points
Nevada: 2 points
Maine: 3 points
Virginia: 4 points
Oregon: 7 points
New Mexico: 9 points
New Jersey: 12 points
Connecticut/Washington: 14 points


I think Kasich wins by around 8 points nationally
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 13, 2018, 06:46:54 PM »

I mean, Kasich would likely have beaten Clinton, but let's dispel with this fiction that he would have won in a massive landslide and won strongly Democratic states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, or Connecticut.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,352


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 13, 2018, 06:54:50 PM »

I mean, Kasich would likely have beaten Clinton, but let's dispel with this fiction that he would have won in a massive landslide and won strongly Democratic states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, or Connecticut.


Oregon is no where near as strongly dem as those other states


If a Republicans wins by 8 points nationally they will likely win Oregon and I think Kasich would win by that margin
Logged
NewEnglandRepublican
Rookie
**
Posts: 23
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 13, 2018, 08:47:44 PM »

I mean, Kasich would likely have beaten Clinton, but let's dispel with this fiction that he would have won in a massive landslide and won strongly Democratic states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, or Connecticut.

What states do you believe he would've won? And why would you consider CT on the same level as Dem as Washington?
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,352


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 14, 2018, 12:02:07 AM »

I mean, Kasich would likely have beaten Clinton, but let's dispel with this fiction that he would have won in a massive landslide and won strongly Democratic states like Washington, Oregon, Illinois, or Connecticut.

Agreed. Demographics + a stable economy + polarization would’ve capped Kasich off at a +5 win max against Hillary. His approvals would’ve come down to reality in a GE against the Clinton machine.

I’m not seeing how Kasich is any stronger than a sitting war time president in 04’ was. And as NCYankee pointed out, Kasich’s pro life past would’ve been brought to the forefront in a GE. Not seeing how he wins over some large segment of Oregon voters in the suburbs or break into the cities to secure a win there.

Oregon is a pretty anti war state so the fact that Bush only lost by 4 points in 2004 was pretty impressive. Kasich is going to be significantly stronger than Bush in Oregon .

Also Kasich doesnt need 50% of the vote in Oregon to win the state


As long as he gets 47% he probably wins the state as if Kasich was the nominee Stein likely gets at least 5 % of the vote and Kasich wins. Kasich is more than capable of getting 47% of the vote in Oregon so I believe he wins the state


Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,352


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 14, 2018, 01:29:18 AM »
« Edited: May 14, 2018, 01:32:19 AM by Old School Republican »

Oregon is a pretty anti war state so the fact that Bush only lost by 4 points in 2004 was pretty impressive. Kasich is going to be significantly stronger than Bush in Oregon.

[Citation Needed]

Mr. Anti-Iraq war Donald Trump couldn’t even prevent a deeply unpopular hawkish Dem from obtaining a majority in Oregon. What makes pro-Iraq War Kasich any better?

Trump was also terrible for the suburbs, Kasich is the exact opposite


And Kasich if he was the nominee probably would be the least hawkish gop nominee since ironically Bush in 2000(not counting trump ) and Kasich favorable were way better than Hillary .


Lastly Oregon has been a +7-8 dem State since like 2004 so if Kasich wins nationally by 7-8 he likely wins the state . I think the main difference comes to how large we think Kasich national win would be by (I think it would be 8-9 points). Even if it’s a 6-7 point national win I still think Kasich wins Oregon due to Stein getting over 5 percent of the vote in Oregon 
 
Logged
Skunk
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,456
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.03, S: -9.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 14, 2018, 12:05:30 PM »

Why would Stein get 5% of voters in Oregon against Kasich vs Clinton and not Trump vs Clinton, lol. There's no way she would somehow double her support.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 11 queries.