Would John Kasich have won Oregon?

[Young Conservative]

Probably. Thanks Jill Stein!

[TJ in Oregon]

No, and Kasich would have done worse than Trump. Yes, Kasich would have done better in Washington County, but he would have bombed in the rural parts of the state.

[RFayette]

No, and Kasich would have done worse than Trump. Yes, Kasich would have done better in Washington County, but he would have bombed in the rural parts of the state.

He would have also over performed in Clackamas, no? 

[TJ in Oregon]

No, and Kasich would have done worse than Trump. Yes, Kasich would have done better in Washington County, but he would have bombed in the rural parts of the state.

He would have also over performed in Clackamas, no? 

Marginal. Clackamas isn't as much of a white collar upscale sort of place as Washington is. Parts of it are, but parts are also more blue collar or touristy (which in most states seem to have swung toward Trump). I doubt Kasich or Trump would be much different in Clackamas overall.

[Xing]

No (not a delusional Kasich hack)

[OSR stands with Israel]

No (not a delusional Kasich hack)

Oregon PVI is +8 Dem


Kasich could win Nationally by more than 8

[Xing]

No (not a delusional Kasich hack)

Oregon PVI is +8 Dem


Kasich could win Nationally by more than 8

That would be nearly impossible for him, and you can't assume uniform swing.

[AtorBoltox]

For god's sake, no. What the hell is it with this guy and these forums?

[ts999]

Wtf no

[😥]

Kasich could not win. Clinton just won with a smaller margin than with Trump

[😥]

Clinton won by 47%

[😥]

Kasich have 45%

[😥]

write-ins 5%

[😥]

And third party candidate have 3%

[South Dakota Democrat]

No he wouldn't have.  He was way over-hyped in 2016.  Sure, he did best in the polling against Clinton, but that was because he was portrayed as this  moderate, God-like person.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Notions like these are why I regard Kasich to be the most overrated Presidential candidate of all time.

 The most plausible scenario that would lead to a Kasich vs Clinton race involves Trump and Ted choosing not to run in the first place, which would leave Jeb being the initial frontrunner due to name recognition only to falter after he, Kasich, Rubio, and Rand duke it out. Kasich would have to amp-up his right-wing bonafides to win the nomination, especially given the fact that Jeb and Rubio would have bigger war chests and Rand would have a more loyal following, which would seriously endanger Kasich's reputation as a 'reasonable' Republican.  It's possible he also alienates quite a few Randites in the process, leading to them opting to stay home or vote for Gary Johnson in the general. Keep in mind that in this scenario, Rubio and Paul have better chances at winning the nomination than Kasich.

In the general election he'd try to pivot back to the center but I don't think he'd react well to criticism and mudslinging. He'd probably get his own "binders full of women" and "47%" type scandals and bungle them. The map ends up exactly like 2012 except for Ohio...and honestly, maybe he even loses that AND North Carolina.

Charisma matters, name recognition matters, special traits matter like being the 'first black President' or the 'first female President' or the 'first openly socialist President' or the 'first President to have not come from a political or military background,' especially over the past ten years.

The only way I see Kasich winning is if 2016 plays out in such a way that anti-Hillary fervor is extremely high to the point where third party leftist candidates spoil things (more votes to Jill Stein? Bernie deciding to run as an independent because he figures that stopping a milquetoast like John Kasich isn't much of a risk?).

[SN2903]

No it's not a good fit for Kasich.