How would John Kasich have done against Hillary Clinton?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Kasich, unlike Sanders, was completely untested, not winning even one primary outside his home state. I suspect he would have won at least New Hampshire, but the median Obama-Kasich voter would have been much more college-educated than the median Obama-Trump voter.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Popular vote win of 2-3 points and similar Trump EC map. Remember, Kasich is from Ohio so much of the strength would have been on display in the Midwest anyway. And Kasich's favorables would have fallen to earth under a general election.

Kasich isn't that liberal or moderate, either. He might have won Nevada, Maine, and New Hampshire, but not Colorado or any of the states Clinton won by 4%+.

-Kasich would not have won Nevada, but might have won Colorado. Trump was always a poor fit for Colorado.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Democrats wouldn't have nearly that much ammunition to attack Kasich with as they had with Trump.  Trump would say something that most of the country found offensive on a weekly basis.  There were plenty of lifelong Republicans who sat out this election because of their disgust with Trump.  Trump scared people.  I just can't imagine nearly as many Democrats and independents being frightened of a Kasich Presidency.  We would have seen more Democrats staying home or voting third party.

-Kasich would have been attacked on policy substance, possibly a much more powerful weapon than mere personal attacks. Kasich was an insider. The narrative would have been very different. Far fewer Hillary 08 voters would have switched away from Hillary 16. Kasich would certainly not have gotten Clinton under 50% in Mahoning. You focus far too much on the White college-educated, and not nearly enough on the White non-college vote.

In any case, it must be noted Kasich was a wildly untested candidate, being a complete unknown, and, consequently, did not win even one primary outside his home state.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Not every Trump voter voted for him just because of trade. Even if you give Clinton MI and MN, I think there is no way Kasich loses Wisconsin. He would have done at least as well as Ron Johnson in the state. Pre-election polling (during the primaries) showed him doing extremely well in the battleground states (much better than Trump, in fact). The Supreme Court and Clinton's unpopularity still would have been major issues.

Of course you can say "But Democrats would have used the character assassination strategy on him like they did with Romney", okay, but what did they do with Trump? They basically destroyed him on the airwaves, outspent him badly and defined him as a monster very early on... and it didn't work. Clinton ran one of the most negative campaigns in history, and she lost. Why would the same failed strategy work with someone like Kasich?

-Romney was character-assassinated for not being a man of the people. Trump was character-assassinated for being too much of a man of the people. One of these has much more impact to the non-college voter.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Kasich had a clear and demonstrated appeal to the working-class types who switched for Trump (he routinely got more of them than Trump did in Ohio to vote not just for him but Republican straight down the ticket) along with the suburban types who switched away from Trump. He would've won a comfortable PV victory by about 4%, and a bigger EV victory than Obama had four years ago:

-No. Kasich did not have that much WWC appeal. Look at the Massachusetts primary.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Kasich had a clear and demonstrated appeal to the working-class types who switched for Trump (he routinely got more of them than Trump did in Ohio to vote not just for him but Republican straight down the ticket) along with the suburban types who switched away from Trump. He would've won a comfortable PV victory by about 4%, and a bigger EV victory than Obama had four years ago:

-No. Kasich did not have that much WWC appeal. Look at the Massachusetts primary.

Primary ≠ general election. He was also competing against Trump and Cruz, and was also seen as a bit of a sideshow candidate, none of which would've been the case in a general election.

-Trump did terribly in the Atlanta suburbs in the primary (where Romney and his mini-me, Rubio, did well in the primary) and was slaughtered there in the general election. Trump also performed better than Romney in the general election throughout the Gingrich-voting areas of the South. Yes, the primary's important as an indicator of candidates' popularity and lack thereof.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

He would have won easily; his inroads with white suburbanites would've offset a GOP loss of any white working class support from not nominating Trump.

-Pretty much.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Clinton - 274
Kasich - 264

This is his best-case scenario.

-You don't think he would have won Wisconsin?