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

[RINO Tom]

He was governor of that state, so he would do better in Ohio.  Secondly, he would certainly have done better in the suburbs, but he wouldn't have done nearly as well among WWC, certainly not enough to offset Hillary.  She still would have kept Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  I see Kasich getting 270, exactly.  Game over. 

You’d be surprised at how much people in the upper Midwest are willing to split ticket. 20% of Walker voters in his 2012 recall voted for Obama per exit polls.

Comparing Walker to Kasich is apples to oranges.  They aren't the same.  And Obama isn't Clinton.  Obama is a better person than Hillary, and actually likeable.  Anyway, Trump is much more a populist than Kasich, especially on immigration, which made him win in the Upper Midwest. 

Kasich would have won with a different map, but there is zero reason he couldn't win the Upper Midwest, too.  Obama wasn't winning a bunch of xenophobes, so I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt that Trump's immigration stance is what carried him over the edge in the Midwest (which historically has been nowhere close to the most racist or intolerant area of the country, far from it); it was Clinton's awfulness and out-of-touch personality as a candidate.  Kasich would have benefited from that, as well.  You can win Wisconsin by doing slightly worse in the rural areas and doing even better in the WOW counties ... heck, he probably would have won it by more.

LOL at Kasich winning Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.  He MAYBE could have squeezed Iowa, I will give him that.  

Yeah, LOL!!!!!!!!

This theory is cute, isn’t it? Apparently some hardcore Trumpists and frustrated Democrats/Clinton supporters DO have something in common after all.

Oh, they absolutely have at least this in common: they want the same political reality of *populist* "conservatives" versus out-of-touch coastal liberals, and they ignore that the vast majority of voters are not close to either of those things.

[Politician]

Kasich would have won Ohio and North Carolina, probably would’ve won Iowa, and would’ve come up just short in Florida and the industrial midwest. And everyone here would be talking about what a great candidate Hillary Clinton was to overcome the adversity and be a woman and president and blah dee blah imagine how much worse Trump would have done.

Kasich was nothing more than Romney 2.0 running in a better R year. Toomey would’ve gone down and probably RonJon as well, though I could see Ayotte winning if Kasich were the nominee.

Overall I think Kasich gets 259 if he takes Florida and 230 otherwise, and is lauded as a really strong Republican / the best Rs could have done just ‘the map was set against him’. He probably would’ve lost the PV by about the same as Trump did but everyone would have talked about how Trump wouldn’t have gotten 40% and would’ve lost like 400-130 in the EC and all sorts of other nonsense.

Trump was the only R who would’ve beaten Hillary post-Christie debate. I think Rubio would have as well prior to his flop in the NH debate.

This seems accurate. Only Trump had that rust-belt appeal that pushed him over the top.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich would have won Ohio and North Carolina, probably would’ve won Iowa, and would’ve come up just short in Florida and the industrial midwest. And everyone here would be talking about what a great candidate Hillary Clinton was to overcome the adversity and be a woman and president and blah dee blah imagine how much worse Trump would have done.

Kasich was nothing more than Romney 2.0 running in a better R year. Toomey would’ve gone down and probably RonJon as well, though I could see Ayotte winning if Kasich were the nominee.

Overall I think Kasich gets 259 if he takes Florida and 230 otherwise, and is lauded as a really strong Republican / the best Rs could have done just ‘the map was set against him’. He probably would’ve lost the PV by about the same as Trump did but everyone would have talked about how Trump wouldn’t have gotten 40% and would’ve lost like 400-130 in the EC and all sorts of other nonsense.

Trump was the only R who would’ve beaten Hillary post-Christie debate. I think Rubio would have as well prior to his flop in the NH debate.

This seems accurate. Only Trump had that rust-belt appeal that pushed him over the top.

You guys act like the Obama-Trump voters in the Midwest were the guys you see on YouTube videos at Trump rallies; they weren't.  These voters were going to vote Democratic until the Democrats nominated someone who seemed to have open disdain for them and actively courted more socially liberal Republicans ... Trump happened to benefit from that, and Kasich would have, too.  Additionally, the "Rust Belt" isn't filled with stereotypical "Rust Belt" voters.  Kasich would have MORE than made up for Trump's modest gains among Whites without a college degree by not tanking among those who had one.  The idea that Trump was anything other than an awful candidate facing an even worse one is true revisionism by either his cultists, Hillary's cultists or liberal elitists who take some sort of sick joy in knowing that those undesirable "WWC" voters were traded for some *moderate Republicans* with COLLEGE DEGREES!  It's pure fantasy.

[MT Treasurer]

I'm neither, I just don't believe Kasich would have won the rust-belt as easily. I do believe he would win NV, NH, Co, and VA though

I disagree, I think winning PA/WI was going to be easier than winning VA/NH/etc. for pretty much any Republican nominee (even someone like Cruz or Rubio), simply because those states are far more elastic, have not trended strongly Democratic in the recent past, and Democrats have a lower floor there. Most of those Midwestern states were never really solidly Democratic to begin with (remember how close WI was in 2000/2004 or how well Republicans did there in 2010 and 2014?). And the “PA is fool's gold for Republicans” narrative was always going to be disproven at some point anyway.

[Politician]

I'm neither, I just don't believe Kasich would have won the rust-belt as easily. I do believe he would win NV, NH, Co, and VA though

I disagree, I think winning PA/WI was going to be easier than winning VA/NH/etc. for pretty much any Republican nominee (even someone like Cruz or Rubio), simply because those states are far more elastic, have not trended strongly Democratic in the recent past, and Democrats have a lower floor there. Most of those Midwestern states were never really solidly Democratic to begin with (remember how close WI was in 2000/2004 or how well Republicans did there in 2010 and 2014?). And the “PA is fool's gold for Republicans” narrative was always going to be disproven at some point anyway.

"Fool's gold" doesn't exist, sooner or later the other party can win that state.

[AtorBoltox]

Oh, they absolutely have at least this in common: they want the same political reality of *populist* "conservatives" versus out-of-touch coastal liberals, and they ignore that the vast majority of voters are not close to either of those things.

I love how they ignore the fact that Johnson, Toomey, Rubio, Portman, etc. (and most other Republican Senators, for that matter) outperformed Trump or that Kasich was polling a lot better than Trump in basically every GE poll, ESPECIALLY in those Midwestern states everyone now fetishizes so much.

Kasich only polled well because he was seen as 'the anti trump' and had no real defined identity of his own. No real scrutiny was given to his record, positions or personality. Now he obviously could have won if he was the nominee (emphasis on could) but these polls really mean very little

[twenty42]

If Kasich were this perfect candidate that he is made out to be around here, he would have won the nomination.

[RINO Tom]

If Kasich were this perfect candidate that he is made out to be around here, he would have won the nomination.

How many more brainless versions of this comment do we need?  Doing better than Trump vs. Hillary =/= being a “perfect candidate.”

[twenty42]

If Kasich were this perfect candidate that he is made out to be around here, he would have won the nomination.

How many more brainless versions of this comment do we need?  Doing better than Trump vs. Hillary =/= being a “perfect candidate.”

How many more brainless threads about hypothetical Kasich realignments do we need? I’m simply sick of hearing how Kasich would’ve won 400 EV’s in November when in reality he only won 13% of what would’ve been his base.

[twenty42]

If Kasich were this perfect candidate that he is made out to be around here, he would have won the nomination.

How many more brainless versions of this comment do we need?  Doing better than Trump vs. Hillary =/= being a “perfect candidate.”

Also, if we apply his argument to other races, you would have to come to the conclusion that flawed candidates like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, or Christine O'Donnell were more electable than any of the other Republicans running in those states.

But you’re not going to change the minds of cultists anyway, so arguing over this is most likely a waste of time, especially on a forum like this. These people are ridiculously adamant about their narrative for obvious reasons.

Lol...now I am a cultist for pointing out the reality of what happened in 2016. The only “narrative” that’s usually espoused on these threads is that Trump was somehow this terrible candidate who only became president because of an avalanche of cosmic accidents. When people point out that he pretty much swept through the primaries and then pierced the fictional “Blue Wall,” they are labeled as delusional cretins, despite the fact that that is exactly what happened.

It’s deja vu all over again with the 2018 midterms. When I point out that D+4 with 16% of the electorate undecided is hardly a wave, I get five posters rushing to tell me how stupid I am for not believing in this foregone Democratic earthslide that will inevitably happen in November. I’m the one on here who lives in reality, yet somehow this makes me a partisan hack.

[NewEnglandRepublican]

I agree with twenty32

[Chips]

Likely Kasich 2016 ceiling against Clinton, Does not give him Connecticut.

How the election likely would've went down in actuality:



Kasich is able to still win the Rust Belt trio and also win NV, CO, VA and NH but loses NM, ME at large and OR. MN is a complete toss-up but I gave it to Clinton to be safe.

So while Kasich would be a very solid candidate in most instances, The idea that he could've won states like CT is wishful thinking.