Talk Elections

obviously he won't be on the ballot, but he has approvals in the low 30s

Oh, good. This nonsense again.

I assume Mitt Romney and John Kasich will be making as many appearances together as possible throughout the state!

As much as Malloy will be a drag on Obama in Connecticut, which is to say not at all.  Coattails are overrated.  Coattails of someone who's not even on the ballot are virtually non-existent.

No but this idea that people are going to vote based on their negative feelings on Kasich is silly.

I wouldn't call what I am trying to get at 'coattails'... there's a Jason Biggs movie (I think), and he is picking out a film in a video rental store that he wants to watch with a woman that he seeks to bone, and he explains the situation to the video store clerk and seeks counsel.  as he queries the clerk on 'How Harry Met Sally', the clerk replies, "can you keep a boner for two hours whilst looking at Billy Crystal?"  and so my question is, have Ohio voters turned flaccid on the GOP after staring at Kasich for over a year?

OK, Governors impact is a bit overrated, but do exists. Remember when Bob Taft dragged the entire GOP ticket down in 2006, while not being on the ballot himself?

I expect whoever the nominee is to fully embrace Kasich and campaign with him, so yes, he will be a drag. Republicans never believe their own politicians are unpopular and will not distance themselves from the unpopular ones.

I remember 2006 dragging down the ticket in 2006.

By the way, Taft certainly was a factor but those were for state and federal races that are different from a Presidential contest.

Assuming Romney is ultimately the nominee, I think Ohio will actually be an uphill climb for the GOP this time around. I just think the "moneybags mitt" narrative is too pervasive for Mitt to overcome. And Frankly, in a general election setting Romney is a very easy person to attack for obvious reasons.

Honestly the MidWest in general is a hard knock for Mitt.

Santorum can win Ohio, but it's an uphill battle. Obama seems pretty popular here. If he could somehow compensate Pennsylvania for Ohio, that would be fantastic.

Kasich?  No.

SB 5?  Yes.

Six years after Pennsylvania voters showed Senator Rick Santorum decisively (59-41) that they no longer wanted him in the Senate  they will still know why they no longer wanted him in the US Senate. There's just no state or combination of states that Rick Santorum or any other Republican candidate can pick up as compensation for the loss of Ohio. You can say "Pennsylvania", "Michigan", "two of Iowa, Minnesota, and Iowa", or for that matter "New York" or even "California" if you wish, but any Republican nominee for President must force a change in consciousness of America to win election.  

I've never heard of a down-ballot candidate affecting the performance of candidates higher on the ticket...especially when said down-ballot candidate isn't even going to be on the ballot in that election.

Just like how in 1962 the people of California showed Richard Nixon that they didn't want him to be Governor? Having lost previous elections is way overrated as an indicator of future performance.

Yeah I think Santorum would have an easier time winning states like Ohio and Iowa then Mittens. Granted Santorum is to the right on social issues but this is going to be an economy election. This isn't 2004.

Malloy's unpopularity is not the same as Kasich's. Kasich has worse disapprovals, stronger feelings of disapproval among those who do, and more disapprovers that would be willing to vote for the opposite party.

I could see him helping Sherrod Brown some but Obama, not as much.

Look, I agree "unpopular Governor dragging the presidential candidate down" is overrated, but certainly, Kasich won't be a help for any of the band of three.

I never said he would be a help.

If this is an economy election, Rick Santorum won't be the nominee.

Malloy has a 50% approval rating to 45% who disapprove in the latest poll out on Connecticut.

That said I agree coattails of people who's names the voters don't see on the ballot do very little to hurt their party's nominee unless the race is made about that person (ie. Ohio 2006).

This sort of thing only happens in Canada.

Yes, Kasich/SB5 is going to hurt the Republican nominee in Ohio. There are an awful lot of normally swing voters out there who have lost trust in the Republican Party after said perceived power grab. That's not to say Ohio's not still a swing state; it is. But it will be a few points more Democratic come 2012 than it would have been if Kasich&Co. in Columbus had not attempted the collective bargaining legislation.

This. 

You can be sure that the Obama campaign and SuperPAC will tailor ads in Ohio to tie Romney (or any GOP nominee) to Kasich and SB5.

Even when someone isn't on the ballot, they can be part of the campaign. Just ask Bob Dole who was tied to the very unpopular Newt Gingrich (with ads talking about the "Dole Gingrich Congress"). Or ask Newt Gingrich who has to explain why he is on a couch with Nancy Pelosi.

Agreed. Any high-profile Republican with a personal scandal, proved extremism, or general incompetence within a State can only hurt the Republicans. "Just like John Kasich" is a good way to go after Republicans in Ohio. You can say much the same of Walker in Wisconsin or Scott in Florida.

That's not to say that such a rule doesn't apply to Democrats, too.