Can an establishment-moderate Pub coalition get Kasich nominated?

[Torie]

This is an interesting article.  It posits that there are four Pub factions, the 1) social conservatives, 2) fiscal conservatives, 3) establishment, and 4) moderates. You always need 3) to get nominated, but need to add either 1) and 2), or 4) to seal the deal. Dubya did it with 1) and 2), but the author thinks it can be done with 4), and that Kasich is making all the right moves to wrap up 4). So the trick is to persuade the establishment that he is steady enough, and reliable enough, to get elected and be a good POTUS. And to the extent Kasich goes up, Jeb goes down, and visa versa, since they are somewhat in the same niche.

I am not sure I believe all of this, but whatever.

[pbrower2a]

Republican moderates? Are there any left?

[xavier110]

Torie, no man is an island… except you may actually be.

[Torie]

Republican moderates? Are there any left?

According to the article there are (e.g., 17% or something in Iowa, presumably a somewhat higher percentage in NH), including, well, this particular DINO. When I read what animates Pub moderates in the article, I said to myself, hey, that's me! I think Badger would say ditto too, so that makes two.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Republican moderates? Are there any left?

The only people who believe there aren't moderate Republicans left are Democratic campaign managers, and even they don't believe it.  There are more far right Republicans and they're louder, but people on this forum act like if you're pro-business or support efficient spending, you're some sort of psycho far right crazy .... positions Republicans have held LITERALLY forever.

[Blair]

Yeah we all remember how well Huntsman did in 2012

[TJ in Oregon]

Moderates aren't the only Republicans who will find Kasich amenable when it comes to the right mix of conservatism and electability. I don't see him getting the hardcore fiscon Tea Partier vote, but I fail to see why socons would have much of a problem with Kasich. 3/4 groups is enough to win the nomination. Now, while Kasich is supportable by 3 of the 4, he's not the first choice of any. He just needs to get enough traction to survive long enough to have a chance to be the last man standing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Guys, moderate and not completely insane aren't the same thing. Huntsman wasn't a moderate, either.

[Free Bird]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420057/why-kasich-matters-and-could-win-henry-olsen

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

If the election is slightly favorable to Republicans, he's probably the most low-risk candidate who would be able to capitalize on it effectively and win as a non-controversial candidate.

Rubio has a much higher ceiling, but more risks. Everyone else has major flaws as a candidate.

[Ebsy]

I don't think he'll last to South Carolina.

[Mr. Morden]

I don't agree with the thesis from the OP exactly, but Torie, what are your thoughts on this Nate Cohn column from January?:

"The Surprising Power of Blue State Republicans"

I don't think he even mentions one advantage that more moderate GOP voters have in presidential primaries, that I've talked about here in the past: Their power is amplified by the fact that most states use some kind of WTA by congressional district delegate allocation, in which every CD gets the same number of delegates.  So the Republican primary voters in Nancy Pelosi's district (who are very few in number) collectively have as much clout as the Republican primary voters in a solidly Republican district elsewhere in California.  As seen in both 2008 and 2012, those urban Republicans are more likely to vote for the "moderate establishment" candidate than the more conservative insurgent.

[Leinad]

Interesting, although I feel that if someone unites the entire conservative base behind them, and aren't too objectionable to the moderates, and the establishment's guy is weak, they could get in without faction 3).

Realistically, I don't see anyone except maybe Rubio or Walker who could do both the first and second criteria (Cruz has the best chance of doing the first, but will never do the second), so even though the establishment's Chosen One is weak (his last name is Bush), it does seem like faction 3) will have a say. But I don't think they need to.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think he joined too late. He already looks boring and uninteresting in a field of 12+ candidates, and the moderate/establishment coalition is mostly behind Bush.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Awesome VP candidate for either Rubio, Walker or Bush to help win Ohio.....seems like he would be on the top of most if not all candidates for the VP slot.

[Torie]

I don't agree with the thesis from the OP exactly, but Torie, what are your thoughts on this Nate Cohn column from January?:

"The Surprising Power of Blue State Republicans"

I don't think he even mentions one advantage that more moderate GOP voters have in presidential primaries, that I've talked about here in the past: Their power is amplified by the fact that most states use some kind of WTA by congressional district delegate allocation, in which every CD gets the same number of delegates.  So the Republican primary voters in Nancy Pelosi's district (who are very few in number) collectively have as much clout as the Republican primary voters in a solidly Republican district elsewhere in California.  As seen in both 2008 and 2012, those urban Republicans are more likely to vote for the "moderate establishment" candidate than the more conservative insurgent.

I have been well aware of this phenomenon, and totally agree with it. I knew it was Mittens' ace in the hole in 2012, and for that matter McCain's in 2008 after he recovered. McCain got almost all of the CA delegates while winning the popular vote only narrowly over Mittens. NY is a machine state, and its vote is delivered to the moderate candidate en mass. The NY Pub establishment has a real incentive to get someone on the top of the ticket that won't wipe them out down ballot. Ditto PA and NJ.

The offsetting factor is that the states that the Pub candidate carried in the prior election get extra delegates, so the red states have more than their share of delegates would be based on electoral votes. But that advantage for more conservative candidates is more than offset by the tendency as you suggest, for blue states to have delegate allocation systems where one candidate gets most of the delegates (including as you also note having "rotten borough" CD's with next to no Pubs being able to select delegates in equal numbers to Pub rich CD's), rather than their being allocated proportionately to the popular vote (thereby hugely reducing the electoral punch of those states).

I sort of think the whole thing is by design. The Pub establishment is well aware that perhaps a majority of their primary voters want candidates that tend to be politically toxic in general elections. So the dice are loaded.  

[Mr. Morden]

I sort of think the whole thing is by design. The Pub establishment is well aware that perhaps a majority of their primary voters want candidates that tend to be politically toxic in general elections. So the dice are loaded.  

As Cohn notes, it's not just that the dice are loaded towards the more moderate candidates in the presidential primaries, but that things are skewed the opposite way, towards more conservative candidates, when it comes to GOP Congressional representation.  (As he points out, 40% of all GOP primary voters live in the 18 most solidly Democratic states.  Yet those same states include just 7% of all Republican US Senators.)  This skews people's perceptions of what the median GOP primary voter looks like.

[Torie]

I sort of think the whole thing is by design. The Pub establishment is well aware that perhaps a majority of their primary voters want candidates that tend to be politically toxic in general elections. So the dice are loaded.  

As Cohn notes, it's not just that the dice are loaded towards the more moderate candidates in the presidential primaries, but that things are skewed the opposite way, towards more conservative candidates, when it comes to GOP Congressional representation.  (As he points out, 40% of all GOP primary voters live in the 18 most solidly Democratic states.  Yet those same states include just 7% of all Republican US Senators.)  This skews people's perceptions of what the median GOP primary voter looks like.

Your point above would only obtain for the Senate obviously. Yes, I suppose that except outside the South, Pub voters in Dem CD's tend to be more moderate as well. We need more "jungle" primary systems.