Why Didn't Kasich Endorse Trump?

[Fuzzy Bear]

John Kasich is one of the mysteries of 2016.  He's one of the candidates who, rather conspicuously, refused to endorse Donald Trump.  Even Ted Cruz came around, and Cruz had real personal reasons to not do so.  Not so with Kasich; he didn't even give an indication that he would vote for Trump.  That, to me, is the minimum standard or party loyalty, to say you'll vote for a candidate, even if you won't campaign for them.

This is a surprise because at the beginning of the campaign, Kasich seemed to realize that Trump's supporters were a faction of their own in the party that were very much part of the Republican base, but who had been ignored.  He was the Repubican Governor of the swing state that swung the furthest in Trump's direction; he could have positioned himself to take lots of credit for that.  Now, it can be said that Trump won a big victory in Ohio in spite of it's Republican Governor, and not because of him..

Why did this happen?  Why couldn't Kasich, in the end, say he'd vote for Trump and make a token appearance?  He was, in many ways, closer to Trump on policy than, say, Ted Cruz.  I can't believe he's got a future in the GOP at this point, and while he's pushing 70, I'm sure he doesn't like the idea of that.  Why did he not come around?  It's one of the bigger mysteries, as far as I'm concerned.

[Green Line]

Because he actually has principles and stands by them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Because he actually has principles and stands by them.

[Mr. Smith]

Because he actually has principles and stands by them.

This, oh and he's probably done with politics after 2018 anyway, so no need for doing things for expediency.

[jimrtex]

I wonder whether this ended up helping Trump in Ohio. If Kasich had backed Trump, Democrats might have been less willing to vote for Trump.

[uti2]

I actually think he thought Trump was going to lose and wanted to look principled and run in 2020.  I think that was also Ted Cruz's initial calculation, but then he realized that Republican primary voters would hate him in 2020 so he changed course and endorsed Trump (still thinking Trump would lose and he'd run in 2020).

None of the tea partyers were ever principled, it's the Jeb/Kasich types who were principled all along.

[RaphaelDLG]

Kasich is historically very, very arrogant and thought that A) Trump was going to defo lose and that B) he could profit from it.

[uti2]

I actually think he thought Trump was going to lose and wanted to look principled and run in 2020.  I think that was also Ted Cruz's initial calculation, but then he realized that Republican primary voters would hate him in 2020 so he changed course and endorsed Trump (still thinking Trump would lose and he'd run in 2020).

None of the tea partyers were ever principled, it's the Jeb/Kasich types who were principled all along.

Ironic as the tea party claims it's an organic movement...

It was funded by Koch in an attempt to control the crazies, Trump wanted to take those crazies and run an independent bid after being the last man standing to Jeb and losing in the primaries and making up a justification to call it 'rigged' to see how many votes he could get in an indie run to satisfy his own ego. His budget was similar to Perot 92's inflation adjusted and he could put Trump Jr's name on the states with loser laws. His campaign was a protest candidacy/ego-trip, like Perot.

[Sir Mohamed]

Because Kasich is a decent man with backbone. Although I have political differences with him, I always had some sympathy for him as a person and found it positive that he is a pragmatic politician; that he did not engage in personal attacks and focused on an optimistic message with substance on the issues. At the GOP debates, he was the only adult on stage. He also had nothing to lose by rejecting the orange clown named Trump and his bigotry since Kasich is in his second gubernatorial term.

[RINO Tom]

John Kasich is one of the mysteries of 2016.  He's one of the candidates who, rather conspicuously, refused to endorse Donald Trump.  Even Ted Cruz came around, and Cruz had real personal reasons to not do so.  Not so with Kasich; he didn't even give an indication that he would vote for Trump.  That, to me, is the minimum standard or party loyalty, to say you'll vote for a candidate, even if you won't campaign for them.

This is a surprise because at the beginning of the campaign, Kasich seemed to realize that Trump's supporters were a faction of their own in the party that were very much part of the Republican base, but who had been ignored.  He was the Repubican Governor of the swing state that swung the furthest in Trump's direction; he could have positioned himself to take lots of credit for that.  Now, it can be said that Trump won a big victory in Ohio in spite of it's Republican Governor, and not because of him..

Why did this happen?  Why couldn't Kasich, in the end, say he'd vote for Trump and make a token appearance?  He was, in many ways, closer to Trump on policy than, say, Ted Cruz.  I can't believe he's got a future in the GOP at this point, and while he's pushing 70, I'm sure he doesn't like the idea of that.  Why did he not come around?  It's one of the bigger mysteries, as far as I'm concerned.

That's because you, for some reason, think that Trump's nomination has shed all Chamber of Commerce/Country Club/affluent/business-minded/whatever-you-didn't-like-about-the-GOP-type Republicans from positions of prominence or influence in the GOP any more than Romney's nomination had that effect on SoCons or this "Trump group" we all seem to think exists in any sort of ideologically coherent way (rather than a mass of frustrated voters that were frustrated for different reasons and have little in common).

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ The republican party is no longer the party of free trade. Neither is the Democratic party. The only party that still believes in free trade is the libertarian party. An unfortunate fact, but a fact it is.

Because he actually has principles and stands by them.

[Pandaguineapig]

He wanted to position himself as the moderate, media favorite candidate when Trump lost. He even had a speech scheduled two days after the election on the path forward for the GOP. When Trump won he knew his gamble had failed and cancelled his speech

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-This. Kasich's also a hard-core neocon and much more loyal to the idea of the Republican establishment he has in his head than the actual Republican party.

[houseonaboat]

I actually think he thought Trump was going to lose and wanted to look principled and run in 2020.  I think that was also Ted Cruz's initial calculation, but then he realized that Republican primary voters would hate him in 2020 so he changed course and endorsed Trump (still thinking Trump would lose and he'd run in 2020).

Cruz endorsed Trump because the Mercers threatened to fund McCaul in the 2018 primary.

Kasich is historically very, very arrogant and thought that A) Trump was going to defo lose and that B) he could profit from it.

This. Would bet bottom dollar John Weaver was behind this as well in some way.

[UncleSam]

I'd at least consider the possibility, as indicated by John Podesta in Wikileaks document 1078645, that Kasich received significant funds from Clinton's advertising budget (along with Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina) to remain 'noticeably silent' throughout the campaign.

Of course Kasich certainly strongly disliked Trump and his policies regardless. The only question is whether that dislike was the sole reason he stated he would never vote for Trump or whether there were more corrupt motivations involved. With Borges out as Ohio GOP Chair, Kasich is probably done in politics after 2018 anyway.

Sad if true (I supported Kasich in the primaries) but it makes sense.

[ClevelandFan7]

Kasich is one of the worst Republican governors in the States and I regret voting for him for governor. Trump didn't even need him to win here by 8.1 points or so.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich is one of the worst Republican governors in the States and I regret voting for him for governor. Trump didn't even need him to win here by 8.1 points or so.

Jesus, did he bang your mom or something?  That's a ridiculous thing to say.

[TJ in Oregon]

Kasich is one of the worst Republican governors in the States and I regret voting for him for governor. Trump didn't even need him to win here by 8.1 points or so.

Jesus, did he bang your mom or something?  That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Kasich has changed in the last year or so and is basically BRTD with a Republican avatar at this point (no offense to BRTD of course, but I don't think he'd make a great governor of Ohio). I regret voting for him too back when I lived in Ohio.

But I still don't think he voted for Hillary. Too self-important for that sort of maneuver.

[Vosem]

Kasich was very open about the fact that he wrote in John McCain.

Kasich didn't endorse Trump because he counted on there being a large backlash against Trump after his defeat in the presidential election and then being able to position himself as the anti-Trump in 2020. He was also far less unique in this respect than Fuzzy Bear seems to think -- many very prominent people in the Ohio Republican Party openly refused to endorse Trump. Rob Portman also didn't, for instance. Kasich was very representative of the leadership of the OHGOP, which for the most part refused to back Trump through to November and which has mostly come around since then but where there is still an unusually vocal faction among the leadership (like, maybe ~40% of the state party central committee) which wants to see the party continue to oppose Trump, or at least maintain its independence from his administration.

[Fuzzy Bear]

John Kasich is one of the mysteries of 2016.  He's one of the candidates who, rather conspicuously, refused to endorse Donald Trump.  Even Ted Cruz came around, and Cruz had real personal reasons to not do so.  Not so with Kasich; he didn't even give an indication that he would vote for Trump.  That, to me, is the minimum standard or party loyalty, to say you'll vote for a candidate, even if you won't campaign for them.

This is a surprise because at the beginning of the campaign, Kasich seemed to realize that Trump's supporters were a faction of their own in the party that were very much part of the Republican base, but who had been ignored.  He was the Repubican Governor of the swing state that swung the furthest in Trump's direction; he could have positioned himself to take lots of credit for that.  Now, it can be said that Trump won a big victory in Ohio in spite of it's Republican Governor, and not because of him..

Why did this happen?  Why couldn't Kasich, in the end, say he'd vote for Trump and make a token appearance?  He was, in many ways, closer to Trump on policy than, say, Ted Cruz.  I can't believe he's got a future in the GOP at this point, and while he's pushing 70, I'm sure he doesn't like the idea of that.  Why did he not come around?  It's one of the bigger mysteries, as far as I'm concerned.

That's because you, for some reason, think that Trump's nomination has shed all Chamber of Commerce/Country Club/affluent/business-minded/whatever-you-didn't-like-about-the-GOP-type Republicans from positions of prominence or influence in the GOP any more than Romney's nomination had that effect on SoCons or this "Trump group" we all seem to think exists in any sort of ideologically coherent way (rather than a mass of frustrated voters that were frustrated for different reasons and have little in common).

That's not what I think at all.  Those types you mention are still Republicans.  They have nowhere else to go, and many are attempting to make their own accommodation with Trump.

What I DO think, however, is that the worst move a politician at the level of Kasich can make is to conspicuously NOT support your party's Presidential nominee.  

Most of the folks who refused to support their party's nominee were done as being upwardly mobile in their party of choice.  What Democrat who abandoned McGovern in 1972 moved upward and improved his/her career as a Democrat after doing so? Ditto similar 1984 Democrats who abandoned Mondale.  Jimmy Carter was as cool to McGovern as a lot of Democrats, but he did make it clear that he would vote for him, even if he did not campaign with/for him.  The same is true for the 1964 Republicans who declined to endorse Goldwater.  Rockefeller, Javits, Case, Scranton; all these guys were relegated to obscurity.  Rockefeller would be forced off the 1976 ticket, while Case and Javits (and Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California) would all lose primaries.  George Romney's 1968 Presidential campaign went nowhere.  These guys, all of them, conspicuously said they would not vote for Goldwater.  Nixon, on the other hand, campaigned for Goldwater, and look what happened.

That's where I'm going with Kasich.  The guy, I presume, has some remaining ambitions; perhaps a run against Sherrod Brown.  But he's hurt himself.  He's no longer viewed as a "loyal" Republican, just as those who jettisoned Goldwater were viewed, and in the same way that those who abandoned McGovern and Mondale were viewed by Democrats.  It's an incredibly bad move, and, truthfully, there's nothing in Kasich's career to suggest he's particularly principled.  Had he said he'd vote for Trump, even if he said nothing else, he'd have been better off than doing what he did.  

[Rjjr77]

Kasich has a big ego, it's well documented. He gambled and lost, he loved the attention he got as being the pragmatic candidate in the primaries (something that he's never been seen as) and assumed he'd be the anti-Trump setting himself up for 2020. In reality his staying in after Nevada may have given trump the biggest boost in the primary.

Now he's probably angling to replace Chris Matthews on MSNBC as they seem to be trending towards a more centrist format.

[Vosem]

John Kasich is one of the mysteries of 2016.  He's one of the candidates who, rather conspicuously, refused to endorse Donald Trump.  Even Ted Cruz came around, and Cruz had real personal reasons to not do so.  Not so with Kasich; he didn't even give an indication that he would vote for Trump.  That, to me, is the minimum standard or party loyalty, to say you'll vote for a candidate, even if you won't campaign for them.

This is a surprise because at the beginning of the campaign, Kasich seemed to realize that Trump's supporters were a faction of their own in the party that were very much part of the Republican base, but who had been ignored.  He was the Repubican Governor of the swing state that swung the furthest in Trump's direction; he could have positioned himself to take lots of credit for that.  Now, it can be said that Trump won a big victory in Ohio in spite of it's Republican Governor, and not because of him..

Why did this happen?  Why couldn't Kasich, in the end, say he'd vote for Trump and make a token appearance?  He was, in many ways, closer to Trump on policy than, say, Ted Cruz.  I can't believe he's got a future in the GOP at this point, and while he's pushing 70, I'm sure he doesn't like the idea of that.  Why did he not come around?  It's one of the bigger mysteries, as far as I'm concerned.

That's because you, for some reason, think that Trump's nomination has shed all Chamber of Commerce/Country Club/affluent/business-minded/whatever-you-didn't-like-about-the-GOP-type Republicans from positions of prominence or influence in the GOP any more than Romney's nomination had that effect on SoCons or this "Trump group" we all seem to think exists in any sort of ideologically coherent way (rather than a mass of frustrated voters that were frustrated for different reasons and have little in common).

That's not what I think at all.  Those types you mention are still Republicans.  They have nowhere else to go, and many are attempting to make their own accommodation with Trump.

What I DO think, however, is that the worst move a politician at the level of Kasich can make is to conspicuously NOT support your party's Presidential nominee.  

Most of the folks who refused to support their party's nominee were done as being upwardly mobile in their party of choice.  What Democrat who abandoned McGovern in 1972 moved upward and improved his/her career as a Democrat after doing so?

Jimmy Carter did not openly endorse Nixon, as some Democrats of that time did, but he did refuse to endorse or campaign for McGovern. He basically had the same position as Kasich did towards Trump.

Incidentally, McGovern returned the favor to Carter four years later (and he revealed in his memoirs that he actually privately voted for Ford that year; I don't recall reading who Carter actually voted for in 1972).

 Ditto similar 1984 Democrats who abandoned Mondale.  Jimmy Carter was as cool to McGovern as a lot of Democrats, but he did make it clear that he would vote for him, even if he did not campaign with/for him.  The same is true for the 1964 Republicans who declined to endorse Goldwater.  Rockefeller, Javits, Case, Scranton; all these guys were relegated to obscurity.

Your argument misses that none of these guys were punished for not backing Goldwater, or at least not immediately. Rockefeller went on to be reelected twice as Governor of New York and then became Vice President of the United States before retiring. Scranton voluntarily decided to leave politics in 1966, and then refused offers to be part of Nixon's Cabinet.

Case and Javits were both reelected two more times to the US Senate. Both were ultimately primaried from the right, but these primaries happened in 1978 and 1980, more than a decade after the Goldwater race, and had more to do with votes they had taken in the late 1970s than the ancient history of the Goldwater race.

Anyway, Rockefeller became VP and was definitely not relegated to obscurity. Scranton left the stage voluntarily. As for Case and Javits, well, neither ever ran for or ever seriously targeted the Presidency (unlike Rockefeller and Scranton); both went on to stay in the Senate for a decade and a half, but then lost elections. That's obscurity in the very long run, of course, but any sane contemporary observer would say they had pretty successful political careers.

 Rockefeller would be forced off the 1976 ticket, while Case and Javits (and Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California) would all lose primaries.  George Romney's 1968 Presidential campaign went nowhere.  These guys, all of them, conspicuously said they would not vote for Goldwater.  Nixon, on the other hand, campaigned for Goldwater, and look what happened.

Romney's campaign went nowhere because of his own gaffe, though. He started off in first place in the polls, though I guess you could argue this was an illusory phase like when Jeb led the polls in 2015.

That's where I'm going with Kasich.  The guy, I presume, has some remaining ambitions; perhaps a run against Sherrod Brown.  But he's hurt himself.  He's no longer viewed as a "loyal" Republican, just as those who jettisoned Goldwater were viewed, and in the same way that those who abandoned McGovern and Mondale were viewed by Democrats.  It's an incredibly bad move, and, truthfully, there's nothing in Kasich's career to suggest he's particularly principled.  Had he said he'd vote for Trump, even if he said nothing else, he'd have been better off than doing what he did.  

Nah, Kasich's not interested in the Senate; he was trying to convince Pat Tiberi to run in his place because he has a feud with our state Treasurer, Josh Mandel, but it looks like Tiberi may pass. Kasich just wants to run for President. I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to primary Trump, or runs as an independent, in 2020.

Anyway, again, our junior Senator, Rob Portman, was just as disloyal a Republican as Kasich and was easily reelected, by more than Trump won the state. It seems clear to me that there is a segment of voters -- a minority, to be sure, but enough to win a plurality in a primary where a majority isn't necessary in more seats than not -- that are willing to reward disloyal Republicanism; I know I am. There were 8 Republican Senators seeking reelection in 2016 who did not endorse Trump (Lisa Murkowski, John McCain, Mike Crapo, Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Mike Lee) -- 7 of them ran ahead of Trump, and the only one who did worse than him (Murkowski, ftr) was facing 3 serious opponents in a 4-candidate race. It's pretty clear the voters preferred disloyal Republicanism.

Will primary voters? It's pretty clear the answer is no. But it's also pretty clear that this isn't the kiss of death, just like it wasn't in the 1960s.

Kasich has a big ego, it's well documented. He gambled and lost, he loved the attention he got as being the pragmatic candidate in the primaries (something that he's never been seen as) and assumed he'd be the anti-Trump setting himself up for 2020. In reality his staying in after Nevada may have given trump the biggest boost in the primary.

Now he's probably angling to replace Chris Matthews on MSNBC as they seem to be trending towards a more centrist format.

You're right about his ego, but also wrong, because you're underestimating it. I don't think Kasich wants to see himself reduced to a commentator. He has some grand plan he'll attempt in 2020 in his mind; I'm sure of it. If Trump is popular, maybe he'll delay it to 2024, but we haven't seen the end of John Kasich For President. (Not that I think he's likely to do well; he pissed off too many anti-Trump people by staying in in 2016, and people will be hungry for a fresh face by then. But I do think he'll attempt it, and I do think a different candidate probably wouldn't be hobbled by an anti-Trump record).

[Mr. Morden]

Trump himself was so "loyal" to the party that he said the previous Republican president before him lied us into war and should have been impeached.  Clearly his lack of party loyalty was a dealbreaker for voters...

[Pericles]

Trump was, and is, a dangerous demagogue who is unfit to hold public office. Most Republican leaders knew that, Paul Ryan said Trump's comments in June were the 'textbook definition of a racist comment' and still endorsed him. They cowered before the rabid pro-Trump anti-Clinton base, they put party over country. Kasich is principled,  decent and a patriot so he rejected Trump.

[MarkD]

Because he actually has principles and stands by them.

Trump was, and is, a dangerous demagogue who is unfit to hold public office. Most Republican leaders knew that, Paul Ryan said Trump's comments in June were the 'textbook definition of a racist comment' and still endorsed him. They cowered before the rabid pro-Trump anti-Clinton base, they put party over country. Kasich is principled,  decent and a patriot so he rejected Trump.

Amen. Keep saying and saying it.