Does John Kasich Really Have a Chance?

[ericpolitico]

Many think Kasich as Jeb-alternative, potential dark horse, and hmm competent governor

Do you think he really has a chance? and really competent?.........

[NHI]

No. He reminds me of Huntsman.

[Famous Mortimer]

Someone ban this dude.

[Torie]

He has a chance, and he's certainly at least reasonably competent. But he will really need to shine in the debates and get folks enthused to have a chance, and project gravitas. He has kind of an ah-shucks quality, which is fine, as long as he can turn it off, and sound serious and thoughtful and knowledgable on policy issues. I think Pub voters in general are very open minded at this point about the candidates, and are in a wait and see mode. That is why the poll fixation at this point is rather silly, other than for the purpose of who gets in the top 10 for the first debate. Kasich may be timing his announcement to get a poll bump at just the right time for the Fox News who gets in the debate poll metric for the first debate, to maximize his chances of getting in. Or he may be timing it a bit late. We shall see.

[heatmaster]

He has as good as chance as any; Ohio gives him an opportunity to present an argument. He needs to stop being too talkative and a little less aw shucks! If he makes solid arguments in presenting his case, he has a reasonably good shot.

[dudeabides]

Of the last five times a Bush was on a primary ballot, they only lost once and that was the first time.

[Mr. Morden]

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the importance of ordinary voters and underestimate the importance of party elites (broadly speaking, so including not just elected officials, but also folks like Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, as well as big $ donors) in determining the nomination.

Many party elites do prefer the more "mainstream" candidates to the bomb throwers like Ted Cruz, but I do think there's such thing as going too far in the other direction, by embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being.  That was a problem for McCain in 2000, and as noted in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214820.0

it seems like it might be a problem for Kasich as well.

[Fuzzy Bear]

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the importance of ordinary voters and underestimate the importance of party elites (broadly speaking, so including not just elected officials, but also folks like Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, as well as big $ donors) in determining the nomination.

Many party elites do prefer the more "mainstream" candidates to the bomb throwers like Ted Cruz, but I do think there's such thing as going too far in the other direction, by embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being.  That was a problem for McCain in 2000, and as noted in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214820.0

it seems like it might be a problem for Kasich as well.

I agree with this, but I also agree that PRIMARY voters are (A) more partisan and (B) more politically aware.  The "electability" argument is very much in their minds when they vote, moreso than casual voters. 

Kasich, in many ways, is the GOP's Dream Candidate, but no one sees this.  He expands the map without contracting it in other places, and people really have no basis to question his conservative bona fides.  He's not exciting, but Ted Cruz IS exciting, so let's put this in perspective.  And he's not a Bush, which is HUGE.  Yes, the Bushes have dominated GOP primaries, and there are reasons for this, but this will be the first time a Bush will be on the ballot after the negative legacy of Bush 43.

[Maxwell]

If he stops slouching maybe he'll have a chance.

[Torie]

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the importance of ordinary voters and underestimate the importance of party elites (broadly speaking, so including not just elected officials, but also folks like Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, as well as big $ donors) in determining the nomination.

Many party elites do prefer the more "mainstream" candidates to the bomb throwers like Ted Cruz, but I do think there's such thing as going too far in the other direction, by embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being.  That was a problem for McCain in 2000, and as noted in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214820.0

it seems like it might be a problem for Kasich as well.

At least among the elites, I don't see Kasich as being viewed as "embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being."  What about him causes you to say that Eraserhead?"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If he stops slouching maybe he'll have a chance.

I want to get him a chiropractor so much.

[andrew_c]

No, unless Bush, Walker, and Rubio implode early on.

[Free Bird]

I think he'll get a bounce once he comes to national attention. Whether that bounce or not puts him in the top tier remains to be seen

[Del Tachi]

No.  The fact that he is largely an unknown commodity means that in the event of a Bush implosion the party establishment would have a much easier time coalescing around Walker, Rubio or even Christie than around Kasich. 

[Mr. Morden]

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the importance of ordinary voters and underestimate the importance of party elites (broadly speaking, so including not just elected officials, but also folks like Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, as well as big $ donors) in determining the nomination.

Many party elites do prefer the more "mainstream" candidates to the bomb throwers like Ted Cruz, but I do think there's such thing as going too far in the other direction, by embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being.  That was a problem for McCain in 2000, and as noted in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214820.0

it seems like it might be a problem for Kasich as well.

At least among the elites, I don't see Kasich as being viewed as "embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being."  What about him causes you to say that Eraserhead?"

OK, "economic reason for being" might be putting it too starkly, but the gist of what I mean is discussed in that Chait column that I link to in the other thread:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/republicans-unhappy-kasich-called-them-monsters.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the kind of thing that Kasich has been doing ever since his poll numbers tanked in Ohio, and he had to rally his favorability #s in order to get reelected (not that I'm being cynical about it ): challenging GOP orthodoxy on social spending head on.  And not just doing it on fiscal responsibility grounds or anything, but doing it in moral terms.  It's the mirror image of John McCain challenging GOP orthodoxy on taxes in the 2000 campaign cycle, which Chait also noted back then was a big challenge to the party line:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/man-not-republican

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the importance of ordinary voters and underestimate the importance of party elites (broadly speaking, so including not just elected officials, but also folks like Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, as well as big $ donors) in determining the nomination.

Many party elites do prefer the more "mainstream" candidates to the bomb throwers like Ted Cruz, but I do think there's such thing as going too far in the other direction, by embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being.  That was a problem for McCain in 2000, and as noted in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214820.0

it seems like it might be a problem for Kasich as well.

At least among the elites, I don't see Kasich as being viewed as "embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being."  What about him causes you to say that Eraserhead?"

OK, "economic reason for being" might be putting it too starkly, but the gist of what I mean is discussed in that Chait column that I link to in the other thread:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/republicans-unhappy-kasich-called-them-monsters.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the kind of thing that Kasich has been doing ever since his poll numbers tanked in Ohio, and he had to rally his favorability #s in order to get reelected (not that I'm being cynical about it ): challenging GOP orthodoxy on social spending head on.  And not just doing it on fiscal responsibility grounds or anything, but doing it in moral terms.  It's the mirror image of John McCain challenging GOP orthodoxy on taxes in the 2000 campaign cycle, which Chait also noted back then was a big challenge to the party line:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/man-not-republican

What Kasich has been saying here is pretty similar to W.'s criticism of the Republican Congress in 99/2000, though the party may have less appetite for the message now.

[Torie]

In general, I think people tend to overestimate the importance of ordinary voters and underestimate the importance of party elites (broadly speaking, so including not just elected officials, but also folks like Rush Limbaugh and Roger Ailes, as well as big $ donors) in determining the nomination.

Many party elites do prefer the more "mainstream" candidates to the bomb throwers like Ted Cruz, but I do think there's such thing as going too far in the other direction, by embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being.  That was a problem for McCain in 2000, and as noted in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=214820.0

it seems like it might be a problem for Kasich as well.

At least among the elites, I don't see Kasich as being viewed as "embracing a critique of the party's economic reason for being."  What about him causes you to say that Eraserhead?"

OK, "economic reason for being" might be putting it too starkly, but the gist of what I mean is discussed in that Chait column that I link to in the other thread:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/republicans-unhappy-kasich-called-them-monsters.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the kind of thing that Kasich has been doing ever since his poll numbers tanked in Ohio, and he had to rally his favorability #s in order to get reelected (not that I'm being cynical about it ): challenging GOP orthodoxy on social spending head on.  And not just doing it on fiscal responsibility grounds or anything, but doing it in moral terms.  It's the mirror image of John McCain challenging GOP orthodoxy on taxes in the 2000 campaign cycle, which Chait also noted back then was a big challenge to the party line:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/man-not-republican

I don't think realizing that subsidized medical insurance is the most intelligent way to provide health care to those who cannot otherwise afford it, as opposed to the prior haphazard system, is a departure from Pub fiscal orthodoxy. Pub fiscal orthodoxy is providing transfer payments in the most efficient means possible, with the least economic distortion as possible, and retaining the economic incentives for choice and efficiency as possible. If you don't believe, just ask Milton Friedman. He's dead, but he can still be reached by various means. Not running imprudent deficits is also Pub orthodoxy. I assume that Ohio is in good fiscal health.

[Frodo]

I don't think realizing that subsidized medical insurance is the most intelligent way to provide health care to those who cannot otherwise afford it, as opposed to the prior haphazard system, is a departure from Pub fiscal orthodoxy. Pub fiscal orthodoxy is providing transfer payments in the most efficient means possible, with the least economic distortion as possible, and retaining the economic incentives for choice and efficiency as possible. If you don't believe, just ask Milton Friedman. He's dead, but he can still be reached by various means. Not running imprudent deficits is also Pub orthodoxy. I assume that Ohio is in good fiscal health.

I didn't know you were a spiritualist. 

[Mister Mets]

I think so.

He has a credible resume, a strong electoral record and some background in broadcasting. He definitely has a lot of upside.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Yes.

[WVdemocrat]

No.

[Kingpoleon]

I think so.

He has a credible resume, a strong electoral record and some background in broadcasting. He definitely has a lot of upside.

From me(the last Rockefeller Republican) to a Buchanan Republican, I've noticed he's the least divisive.

If he makes it into the debates, he'll make a strong showing.

[Mr. Smith]

I think so.

He has a credible resume, a strong electoral record and some background in broadcasting. He definitely has a lot of upside.

From me(the last Rockefeller Republican) to a Buchanan Republican, I've noticed he's the least divisive.

If he makes it into the debates, he'll make a strong showing.

That's a big "if", if you will.

[Kingpoleon]

I think so.

He has a credible resume, a strong electoral record and some background in broadcasting. He definitely has a lot of upside.

From me(the last Rockefeller Republican) to a Buchanan Republican, I've noticed he's the least divisive.

If he makes it into the debates, he'll make a strong showing.

That's a big "if", if you will.

Announcement spike has averaged 7.875%. A quarter of that sends him to the debates.

[/]

Christie and Kasich have a better chance than people say they do.