2016: John Kasich V. Hillary Clinton

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

Absolute best-case scenario for Kasich:

Kasich 341
Clinton 197

What I think would have been the most likely outcome:

Clinton 307
Kasich 231

Why does Clinton win Florida, Co and Nev against Kasich but possibly loses them against a historic dick like Trump?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^The country is more polarized than you think. Her advantages with minorities and White women would still exist even without Trump and they made it very difficult for Kasich to win this race. As much as I hate to admit it, but the Clinton campaign would have turned him into Romney 2.0. Just because Trump is losing right now, that doesn't mean that any other Republican would be winning right now.

Voters are rejecting the Republican Party and conservatism, Trump is only making it worse. 

If voters are rejecting conservatism, then why are Senate Democrats struggling to reach anything more than a "Manchin Majority"?

[Figueira]

I think Clinton wins. Kasich reminds me a bit of Romney.

[PeteB]

Interesting results disparity, after 90 votes (albeit from Atlasians ):

Will vote for:
Clinton -45.6%
Kasich - 42.3%
Other - 12.2%

Thinks will win:
Clinton -34.5%
Kasich - 65.6%
Other - 12.2%

It seems that even Clinton supporters are not quite on board the Clinton train. 

FTR, I think that Kasich would have won, if he was the candidate.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

Hillary Clinton 2016 is a terrible candidate, Kasich doesn't really have any baggage, so he should be able to win fairly comfortably.  A lot of Democrats would feel much safer staying home or voting third party in this scenario than against Trump.

[Monolith]

I'd vote Kasich but Heinrich as VP is something I could get behind

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hillary Clinton 2016 is a terrible candidate, Kasich doesn't really have any baggage, so he should be able to win fairly comfortably.  A lot of Democrats would feel much safer staying home or voting third party in this scenario than against Trump.

Most people who are supporting Clinton now would support her over any other Republican as well. Democrats would have teared him apart and his favorability ratings would be in the tank right now.

Hypothetical general election polls consistently showed Kasich well ahead of Hillary. While I know some of that was because Kasich was not as heavily scruntized as Cruz or Trump, it doesn't explain everything. Kasich is a different kind of republican. He wouldn't be anatagonizing foreign policy experts. He wouldn't be losing the endorsements of people like Scott Rigell and Mark Kirk. What he did in 2011 with the unions would be the only thing Democrats would have to use against him, and it probably wouldn't be enough. He restored Ohio's economy, has a 60% approval rating, forced Medicaid expansion down the legislature's throat, and is against RFRA-type bills. He consistently campaigned as a moderate. I'm not saying Kasich would win the pacific northwest or anything crazy like that. But he would win by an Obama 2012 esque margin.

If voters are rejecting conservatism, then why isn't Hillary up by 10 points - if it's about ideology her health shouldn't matter, right? And why do the republicans still have a path to keeping the senate majority?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If voters are rejecting conservatism, then why isn't Hillary up by 10 points - if it's about ideology her health shouldn't matter, right? And why do the republicans still have a path to keeping the senate majority?

Well, most conservative Republicans in swing states are running as "moderates". In 2018, you'll see the same thing happening on the Democratic side - red/swing state Democrats Senators pretending to be moderate and bipartisan. Voters are falling for that, which is the reason why people like Heidi Heitkamp and Mark Kirk are in the Senate right now.

Not sure about Heitkamp, but Kirk is a genuine moderate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

^The country is more polarized than you think. Her advantages with minorities and White women would still exist even without Trump and they made it very difficult for Kasich to win this race. As much as I hate to admit it, but the Clinton campaign would have turned him into Romney 2.0. Just because Trump is losing right now, that doesn't mean that any other Republican would be winning right now.

Voters are rejecting the Republican Party and conservatism, Trump is only making it worse. 

No people are rejecting trump who is not a conservative. The fact is hillary would probably lose independents by 15-20 points vs kasich

[henster]

I mean all Clinton could attack Kasich over is Lehman Bros gig which would be negated by her own Wall St ties and cutting PP, entitlement cuts standard playbook. Nothing really devastating, could easily seen her losing 5+ to him.

[PeteB]

Interesting results disparity, after 90 votes (albeit from Atlasians ):

Will vote for:
Clinton -45.6%
Kasich - 42.3%
Other - 12.2%

Thinks will win:
Clinton -34.5%
Kasich - 65.6%
Other - 12.2%

It seems that even Clinton supporters are not quite on board the Clinton train. 

FTR, I think that Kasich would have won, if he was the candidate.

After 120 votes, the disparity between voting intention and win expectations are even more stark (you can make your own conclusions):

Will vote for:
Clinton - 45%
Kasich - 44.2%
Other - 10.8%

Thinks will win:
Clinton - 30%
Kasich - 70%

[Young Conservative]

Kasich wins 350+ landslide. I vote for him...not happily.