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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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%.

[Southern Senator 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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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%.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Whats the short and sweet scenario?

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.