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

[RINO Tom]

Obviously not.  I think Kasich could have pulled this, though:

[RINO Tom]

Obviously not.  I think Kasich could have pulled this, though:

WV would definitely be a R>60% state in this scenario.

My guess, give or take Maine and Colorado (327-211 GOP EC win, btw):

I wanted to make NH a D>50% state, but given how badly Clinton underperformed against Trump of all people, I doubt she would have done a lot better there had she run against Kasich.

Yeah, oops, that was definitely a mistake.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich may have won but he’s terribly overrated on here. There is 0 evidence to suggest that he is some super unbeatable candidate. In fact everything suggests otherwise

It doesn’t take ANYWHERE near a “super unbeatable” candidate to achieve that map vs. Hillary Clinton, LMAO.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich may have won but he’s terribly overrated on here. There is 0 evidence to suggest that he is some super unbeatable candidate. In fact everything suggests otherwise

It doesn’t take ANYWHERE near a “super unbeatable” candidate to achieve that map vs. Hillary Clinton, LMAO.

I’m not sure man, I think an unconventional candidate/outsider like Trump was the only one capable of defeating the unbelievably powerful Clinton machine in 2016. Surely we all remember how strong his GE campaign was, no? Kasich would have done worse among WWC voters and thus lost WI, PA, MI, FL, and maybe AZ and IA as well.

Trump was the perfect foil to Hillary. No way a conventional republican like Kasich or Jeb would have attracted enough support from Obama-voting WWC to flip WI, PA and MI.

Okay, then agree to disagree.  Hillary did a perfectly fine job at alienating "WWC" voters on her own, and Republicans that didn't rely on registered Democrats and former Obama voters have won elections in all three states you just named.  Trump's populism is but one form of populism.  After all, any successful candidate HAS to be at least somewhat of a populist in style, no?  For God's sake, just because she was comically terrible at it doesn't mean Hillary Clinton didn't campaign as a "populist" (to predetermined demographics, of course); she absolutely did.  Kasich would have been a "populist" as well, he just wouldn't have been a classless bafoon.  I think Kasich picks up *enough* WWC voters in the Midwest (his home region) to win all of those states you mentioned and also holds on to a lot more traditional Republican support in suburban areas and among college educated Whites.  His performance among "WWC" voters in those states wouldn't have been QUITE as "impressive" as Trump's, because he wouldn't have been an offensive enough candidate to begin with to NEED that impressive of a "flip" of those voters.

[RINO Tom]

^ I know, I was responding to the guy/gal who quoted you.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich's so overrated it stopped to be funny. It's just cringeworthy.

It was just a dream.

Again, Kasich could be overrated and still easily defeat Hillary Clinton, haha.  Winning Oregon and Connecticut, on the other hand ... LOL.

[RINO Tom]

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

Yeah, LOL!!!!!!!!

[RINO Tom]

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

Yeah, LOL!!!!!!!!

Kasich couldn't have done nearly as well in the Industrial Midwest as Trump.

Sure he could have.  For one, he was facing Hillary Clinton, so that alone gives him an edge.  Secondly, he has ALREADY WON a state in the industrial Midwest by a lot more than Trump did, even if it wasn't a federal race.  Third, whatever slight dropoff he'd have among these "Obama-Trump voters" (which there weren't that many of, honestly), he'd make up for by better margins in the various suburbs across Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[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.

[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.

[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.”