Who is the most electable Republican candidate against Clinton?

[Senator-elect Spark]

Kasich or Rubio are the safe bets for the nomination. Trump and Cruz would get destroyed in a general election due to their extreme views. Bush and Christie would fare well but not do well enough to win.

[Blair]

Christie is one of the best politicians since Clinton, in purely personal terms

[Lincoln Republican]

Marco

[Sir Mohamed]

Kasich, he's experienced, has a record and would appeal to moderates. To unify the GOP, he has tp pick Rubio as his VP.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Kasich, Christie... Trump would need a lot to go right for him to be the strongest, but he could BECOME the strongest.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Kasich, because without OH, there is no WH. However, if Kasich is on the ballot the Dems will zero in on OH. If he's not, they will look towards Colorado. And right now he's surging in NH.

[Sir Mohamed]

Kasich, because without OH, there is no WH. However, if Kasich is on the ballot the Dems will zero in on OH. If he's not, they will look towards Colorado. And right now he's surging in NH.

The GOP might win without OH, but not with FL. That's impossible. Therefore, a Kasich/Rubio ticket would be the strongest the GOP can offer.

[Sir Mohamed]

Btw, this is an interesting opinion about Kasich: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/04/montel-williams-john-kasich-is-only-gop-candidate-who-can-unite-america.html

[Young Conservative]

I would've voted Rubio. Who voted for Trump ? *insert laughing face emoji*

[uti2]

I would've voted Rubio. Who voted for Trump ? *insert laughing face emoji*

Kasich was the only Republican who consistently polled ahead, Rubio was tied in FL, so was Jeb, and the last polls in OH had Hillary up on Rubio. By the way, it should be noted that also by hogging the media attention you get all the negatives that come your way, so when the field narrowed, cruz who had previously barely followed a generic R, went down dramatically in his numbers and favorables, that would've happened to any Republican, it already started to, right before rubio dropped out.

[Redban]

Again? How many times do I have to address the misconception that Kasich would be doing much better (See this thread --- https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241816)

1). Kasich doesn't have the charisma to get media attention in the television era of politics. Indeed, everyone ignored him during the primaries.

2). His moderate positions would make him a poor fit among conservatives, the core of the party. Kasich might gain 200,000 votes in Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and New Hampshire; but he'd lose 5-10 million nationwide, especially in the South and Midwest.

3). The polls that showed Kasich ahead of Clinton are misleading because few people know who Kasich is. The polls, thus, are more of a reflection of Clinton's negative approval ratings than Kasich's spectacular appeal.

[uti2]

Again? How many times do I have to address the misconception that Kasich would be doing much better (See this thread --- https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241816)

1). Kasich doesn't have the charisma to get media attention in the television era of politics. Indeed, everyone ignored him during the primaries.

2). His moderate positions would make him a poor fit among conservatives, the core of the party. Kasich might gain 200,000 votes in Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and New Hampshire; but he'd lose 5-10 million nationwide, especially in the South and Midwest.

3). The polls that showed Kasich ahead of Clinton are misleading because few people know who Kasich is. The polls, thus, are more of a reflection of Clinton's negative approval ratings than Kasich's spectacular appeal.

He was ignored because the establishment wasn't backing him, if they had, it would've been a different story, see Jeb. The same polling issues apply to all republicans as I explained above, rubio's started to go down right before he dropped out, and cruz stayed in and his numbers went down worse.

Why don't you address for Rubio for once? By the way, Kasich is not that moderate actually, not much more than GWB. Just relative to the modern republican contenders.

[Redban]

Again? How many times do I have to address the misconception that Kasich would be doing much better (See this thread --- https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241816)

1). Kasich doesn't have the charisma to get media attention in the television era of politics. Indeed, everyone ignored him during the primaries.

2). His moderate positions would make him a poor fit among conservatives, the core of the party. Kasich might gain 200,000 votes in Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and New Hampshire; but he'd lose 5-10 million nationwide, especially in the South and Midwest.

3). The polls that showed Kasich ahead of Clinton are misleading because few people know who Kasich is. The polls, thus, are more of a reflection of Clinton's negative approval ratings than Kasich's spectacular appeal.

He was ignored because the establishment wasn't backing him, if they had, it would've been a different story, see Jeb. The same polling issues apply to all republicans as I explained above, rubio's started to go down right before he dropped out, and cruz stayed in and his numbers went down worse.

Why don't you address for Rubio for once? By the way, Kasich is not that moderate actually, not much more than GWB. Just relative to the modern republican contenders.

1). Regarding your point about the establishment, Kasich had the vocal support of many insiders, such as Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Rob Portman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Additionally, the establishment didn't back several people (i.e. Cruz and Trump), yet they managed to get the required attention from voters nonetheless. Hence, the establishment didn't prompt everyone to ignore Kasich.

2). Your point about polling proves my foregoing statement. When candidates got to know Cruz, Rubio, and others, the polls started becoming more unfavorable to them. Therefore, the unknown candidate is at an advantage, and the known candidate is at a disadvantage. As everyone ignored Kasich and, thus, didn't know him, he had the unfair, deceptive advantage in the head-to-head polls against Hillary.

3). You admit that he is a moderate "relative to the modern republican contenders"; and that is all that matters. He supports a pathway to citizenship, is lenient on LGBT rights, supports environmental regulation to combat climate change, and has a muddy record on ObamaCare. Today, those details make him a moderate.

[uti2]

Again? How many times do I have to address the misconception that Kasich would be doing much better (See this thread --- https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=241816)

1). Kasich doesn't have the charisma to get media attention in the television era of politics. Indeed, everyone ignored him during the primaries.

2). His moderate positions would make him a poor fit among conservatives, the core of the party. Kasich might gain 200,000 votes in Vermont, Oregon, Washington, and New Hampshire; but he'd lose 5-10 million nationwide, especially in the South and Midwest.

3). The polls that showed Kasich ahead of Clinton are misleading because few people know who Kasich is. The polls, thus, are more of a reflection of Clinton's negative approval ratings than Kasich's spectacular appeal.

He was ignored because the establishment wasn't backing him, if they had, it would've been a different story, see Jeb. The same polling issues apply to all republicans as I explained above, rubio's started to go down right before he dropped out, and cruz stayed in and his numbers went down worse.

Why don't you address for Rubio for once? By the way, Kasich is not that moderate actually, not much more than GWB. Just relative to the modern republican contenders.

1). Regarding your point about the establishment, Kasich had the vocal support of many insiders, such as Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Rob Portman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Additionally, the establishment didn't back several people (i.e. Cruz and Trump), yet they managed to get the required attention from voters nonetheless. Hence, the establishment didn't prompt everyone to ignore Kasich.

2). Your point about polling proves my foregoing statement. When candidates got to know Cruz, Rubio, and others, the polls started becoming more unfavorable to them. Therefore, the unknown candidate is at an advantage, and the known candidate is at a disadvantage. As everyone ignored Kasich and, thus, didn't know him, he had the unfair, deceptive advantage in the head-to-head polls against Hillary.

3). You admit that he is a moderate "relative to the modern republican contenders"; and that is all that matters. He supports a pathway to citizenship, is lenient on LGBT rights, supports environmental regulation to combat climate change, and has a muddy record on ObamaCare. Today, those details make him a moderate.

1) Romney was considering endorsing Rubio at first back in Feb, but his performance in NV caused him to hold back on doing so, while all other insiders did after SC. Romney also endorsed Cruz for the UT caucus later on, and blamed Kasich for 'staying in too long'. Also, the Bush camp later on eventually got behind Cruz, not Kasich.


2) The public did not get to know Cruz really until Apr/May (although the slightly negative trend began in March for him and rubio), that's when Cruz's numbers really collapsed, before his previous polling as a generic R, same would've happened to any Republican, admittedly, but considering Kasich's highest point in the polling, he would've had a comfortable buffer. I.E. relative to Rubio/Jeb being dead-even in FL v. Hillary, Kasich was up comfortably.

3) Rubio also had troubles with the pathway. And Kasich was more milquetoast on his actual Global Warming position:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/john-kasich-climate-change-donald-trump

The 'base' voted for GWB's medicare part D.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Rubio or Kasich would have won this election easily but republican voters are so out of touch with the national electorate so they nominated Trump. And after Nov. 8th they will be confused to why they lost AGAIN in a landslide, sometimes i guess you never learn from your past mistakes.

[uti2]

Rubio or Kasich would have won this election easily but republican voters are so out of touch with the national electorate so they nominated Trump. And after Nov. 8th they will be confused to why they lost AGAIN in a landslide, sometimes i guess you never learn from your past mistakes.

Again, people need to stop grouping in Rubio and Kasich together, they are nothing alike. Rubio is closer to Cruz, and Cruz's polling numbers totally tanked (after closely trailing rubio's and the generic r template) when more people discovered his actual policies, and rubio's unfavs + polling numbers were also beginning to follow that trajectory in March right before he dropped out. The last OH polls had Hillary up on Rubio, and they were always tied in FL, and Hillary was consistently up on the republicans in the last polls in VA, etc. Rubio at best would've been similar to Jeb, maybe close in the PV, but Hillary would've been favored in the EV map.

Case in point, on Super Tuesday there was a cnn poll showing +3 for rubio, and +1 for cruz, yet by early May cruz collapsed to -10. The last 2 general polls for rubio were a yougov poll that had hillary up +2, and the nbc/wsj poll that had hillary and rubio neck and neck, so his numbers were always closely channeling cruz's trajectory and were also starting to go down.

This is not even getting into the debates and rubio's weakness in his policy knowledge vs. even someone like Jeb where he could be clowned, and would have to resort to empty memorized slogans, similar to Trump. It is somewhat ironic, but if you are to be logically consistent, then both Rubio and Trump would fail in terms of actual policy comprehension relative to Jeb or Kasich or even Cruz, unless you are just angry that Trump doesn't stick the standard R talking point script vs. actual 'fitness'.