Why Didn't Kasich Endorse Trump?

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Kasich is a term-limited governor with likely nothing to lose, so I'm going to guess he acted based on his principles or simply to spite Trump and the GOP. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's the former.

[Rjjr77]

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).

Kasich's ego is big, but I don't think he's above being a commentator, his problem is going to be financial support, his money people in Ohio dumped him, and he knows it, he'll need a platform from which to run in 2024... Unless he runs as a democrat...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

Wait, wait. Has Kasich actually governed all liberal all the time in the last year? OMG my opinion is actually shooting up!

[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?

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).

You're not correct on Carter.  Carter publicly said he would vote for McGovern, but wouldn't campaign for him.  McGovern didn't reveal that he voted for Ford during the campaign; that didn't happen until after he left the Senate.

Carter tried, shamelessly, to get McGovern to pick him as his running mate.  Truthfully, McGovern should have taken him up on it.  

Candidates who abandon their national ticket can often keep getting re-elected in their state if the national ticket is out of sync with the state's party, but it still kills their chances if they want to run for President.  This is exactly what happened to Rockefeller, he turned to the right after 1970, but it was never enough for the GOP's conservatives, who never forgave his apostasy.  Democrats who were silent on McGovern were some of the first casualties of the 1974 move by the Democratic caucus to end the seniority system.  I cannot think of a single Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee of either party who bucked their party's Presidential nominee by refusing to support them, and made it onto the ticket after that.  Indeed, until this year, the only ticket members who I can remember not endorsing the nominee AFTER being on the ticket were Joe Lieberman (who actually campaigned for McCain and was almost HIS VP candidate) and MAYBE John Sparkman in 1972.  

[Mr. Morden]

Candidates who abandon their national ticket can often keep getting re-elected in their state if the national ticket is out of sync with the state's party, but it still kills their chances if they want to run for President.  This is exactly what happened to Rockefeller, he turned to the right after 1970, but it was never enough for the GOP's conservatives, who never forgave his apostasy.  Democrats who were silent on McGovern were some of the first casualties of the 1974 move by the Democratic caucus to end the seniority system.  I cannot think of a single Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee of either party who bucked their party's Presidential nominee by refusing to support them, and made it onto the ticket after that.  Indeed, until this year, the only ticket members who I can remember not endorsing the nominee AFTER being on the ticket were Joe Lieberman (who actually campaigned for McCain and was almost HIS VP candidate) and MAYBE John Sparkman in 1972.  

And yet, despite this history, many Republican politicians (not just Kasich) last year publicly said that they wouldn't vote for Trump:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=230807.0

All of these folks either 1) have no interest in running on a national ticket in the future, and are content to hold onto their current office forever, 2) don't think the history you cite is relevant to their situation, for whatever reason, or 3) are principled enough that they're willing to risk their own ambitions because they think Trump is sufficiently terrible that they had to speak out against him.

I mean, that's the full range of logical possibilities, right?  What's the fourth option?  That some of these folks actually thought Trump wouldn't be the nominee anymore by election day, because he'd quit over the Billy Bush tape or something?

[Mr. Morden]

Primary season flashback:

I have respect for the Republicans who say they won't support Trump.  Some of them have deep policy differences, some of them are afraid of alienating Democrats they need to be re-elected, and some honestly don't like his persona.  What I don't have respect for are those Republicans who put Trump down, call him a bigot, racist, etc, but then say he's better than Hillary, so they'll support him if he's the nominee.  They're only better than the cowards who won't answer the question on the grounds that "Trump's not going to be the nominee."

[Fuzzy Bear]

Candidates who abandon their national ticket can often keep getting re-elected in their state if the national ticket is out of sync with the state's party, but it still kills their chances if they want to run for President.  This is exactly what happened to Rockefeller, he turned to the right after 1970, but it was never enough for the GOP's conservatives, who never forgave his apostasy.  Democrats who were silent on McGovern were some of the first casualties of the 1974 move by the Democratic caucus to end the seniority system.  I cannot think of a single Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee of either party who bucked their party's Presidential nominee by refusing to support them, and made it onto the ticket after that.  Indeed, until this year, the only ticket members who I can remember not endorsing the nominee AFTER being on the ticket were Joe Lieberman (who actually campaigned for McCain and was almost HIS VP candidate) and MAYBE John Sparkman in 1972.  

And yet, despite this history, many Republican politicians (not just Kasich) last year publicly said that they wouldn't vote for Trump:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=230807.0

All of these folks either 1) have no interest in running on a national ticket in the future, and are content to hold onto their current office forever, 2) don't think the history you cite is relevant to their situation, for whatever reason, or 3) are principled enough that they're willing to risk their own ambitions because they think Trump is sufficiently terrible that they had to speak out against him.

I mean, that's the full range of logical possibilities, right?  What's the fourth option?  That some of these folks actually thought Trump wouldn't be the nominee anymore by election day, because he'd quit over the Billy Bush tape or something?

The highlighted portion of the quote is, indeed, true.  It's one of the remarkable factors in the election.  Never has a candidate won the Presidency with as many fellow partisans bolting the ticket as Trump did.  If in 2015, you'd have given me the list of Republican officeholders who would decline to endorse Trump publicly, I'd have predicted he'd have only carried 15 states, all in the South, Great Plains, and Mountain West.  Trump not only won, he carried Michigan, a state where at least four (4) GOP Reps refused to endorse him. 

One difference between Trump's 2016 campaign and the campaigns of Goldwater 1968 and McGovern 1972 is that the latter two were examples of a nominee at the ideological edge of the party, far away from the center, which caused those at the other end of the party to balk.  Trump's nomination wasn't such an event; it was akin to a Hostile Takeover of the party machinery, and this was something different.  Perhaps this context will prove me wrong, and the #NeverTrumpers will be rapidly forgiven and this will be forgotten in 2024.  In the meantime, I'll stick to my argument that party irregularity at the level of not endorsing the top of the Presidential ticket is the kind of black mark on a candidate's resume that will forever be there to be used against him/her in future races, and something that will not help them win the primary votes of partisan voters.

[Vosem]

It's pretty clear that the general electorate outside of the Deep South is not just tolerant of NeverTrump Republicanism, but outright willing to reward it. There's no other way to explain that every NeverTrump Republican Senator except for the one facing a multi-candidate race ran ahead of Trump. This was true even in the areas where Trump improved so dramatically -- Ohio voted for Trump by 8 points, and for its incumbent NeverTrump Senator by 21. Toomey, Portman, Ayotte, Kirk, McCain, Lee, and Crapo all ran ahead of Trump. Several by double-digits.

The only officeholder punished for a NeverTrump stance was Martha Roby, in rural Alabama. It's pretty clear that no region of America besides the Deep South actually saw fit to punish NeverTrump.

Now, as for the primary elections? Those could be different. But that remains to be seen.

You're not correct on Carter.  Carter publicly said he would vote for McGovern, but wouldn't campaign for him.  McGovern didn't reveal that he voted for Ford during the campaign; that didn't happen until after he left the Senate.

Carter tried, shamelessly, to get McGovern to pick him as his running mate.  Truthfully, McGovern should have taken him up on it. 

Candidates who abandon their national ticket can often keep getting re-elected in their state if the national ticket is out of sync with the state's party, but it still kills their chances if they want to run for President.  This is exactly what happened to Rockefeller, he turned to the right after 1970, but it was never enough for the GOP's conservatives, who never forgave his apostasy.  Democrats who were silent on McGovern were some of the first casualties of the 1974 move by the Democratic caucus to end the seniority system.  I cannot think of a single Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee of either party who bucked their party's Presidential nominee by refusing to support them, and made it onto the ticket after that.  Indeed, until this year, the only ticket members who I can remember not endorsing the nominee AFTER being on the ticket were Joe Lieberman (who actually campaigned for McCain and was almost HIS VP candidate) and MAYBE John Sparkman in 1972. 

Rockefeller was already too far left for the GOP in 1964; he never sought forgiveness from the GOP's conservatives and never got it. It is true that the casualties of the post-1974 purges were mostly those who had been silent about McGovern, but it's also true that there was no complete purge, and many of those people who had been silent (like Carter, who I cannot find any of evidence of that he voted for McGovern, and lots of evidence that he refused to campaign for him while leaving his vote ambiguous) continued to hold prominent roles in the Democratic Party for decades.

People who were on the ticket who refused to support a later ticket? Yeah, before 2016 that would've been unusual -- Lieberman is the only example I can think of. John Sparkman was actually a very close personal of friend of McGovern's; they traveled abroad together on several occasions and Sparkman certainly voted for McGovern.

[uti2]

It's pretty clear that the general electorate outside of the Deep South is not just tolerant of NeverTrump Republicanism, but outright willing to reward it. There's no other way to explain that every NeverTrump Republican Senator except for the one facing a multi-candidate race ran ahead of Trump. This was true even in the areas where Trump improved so dramatically -- Ohio voted for Trump by 8 points, and for its incumbent NeverTrump Senator by 21. Toomey, Portman, Ayotte, Kirk, McCain, Lee, and Crapo all ran ahead of Trump. Several by double-digits.

The only officeholder punished for a NeverTrump stance was Martha Roby, in rural Alabama. It's pretty clear that no region of America besides the Deep South actually saw fit to punish NeverTrump.

Now, as for the primary elections? Those could be different. But that remains to be seen.

You're not correct on Carter.  Carter publicly said he would vote for McGovern, but wouldn't campaign for him.  McGovern didn't reveal that he voted for Ford during the campaign; that didn't happen until after he left the Senate.

Carter tried, shamelessly, to get McGovern to pick him as his running mate.  Truthfully, McGovern should have taken him up on it. 

Candidates who abandon their national ticket can often keep getting re-elected in their state if the national ticket is out of sync with the state's party, but it still kills their chances if they want to run for President.  This is exactly what happened to Rockefeller, he turned to the right after 1970, but it was never enough for the GOP's conservatives, who never forgave his apostasy.  Democrats who were silent on McGovern were some of the first casualties of the 1974 move by the Democratic caucus to end the seniority system.  I cannot think of a single Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee of either party who bucked their party's Presidential nominee by refusing to support them, and made it onto the ticket after that.  Indeed, until this year, the only ticket members who I can remember not endorsing the nominee AFTER being on the ticket were Joe Lieberman (who actually campaigned for McCain and was almost HIS VP candidate) and MAYBE John Sparkman in 1972. 

Rockefeller was already too far left for the GOP in 1964; he never sought forgiveness from the GOP's conservatives and never got it. It is true that the casualties of the post-1974 purges were mostly those who had been silent about McGovern, but it's also true that there was no complete purge, and many of those people who had been silent (like Carter, who I cannot find any of evidence of that he voted for McGovern, and lots of evidence that he refused to campaign for him while leaving his vote ambiguous) continued to hold prominent roles in the Democratic Party for decades.

People who were on the ticket who refused to support a later ticket? Yeah, before 2016 that would've been unusual -- Lieberman is the only example I can think of. John Sparkman was actually a very close personal of friend of McGovern's; they traveled abroad together on several occasions and Sparkman certainly voted for McGovern.

Well, Joe Heck in NV, Trump ran ahead of.

[Mr. Morden]

It's pretty clear that the general electorate outside of the Deep South is not just tolerant of NeverTrump Republicanism, but outright willing to reward it. There's no other way to explain that every NeverTrump Republican Senator except for the one facing a multi-candidate race ran ahead of Trump. This was true even in the areas where Trump improved so dramatically -- Ohio voted for Trump by 8 points, and for its incumbent NeverTrump Senator by 21. Toomey, Portman, Ayotte, Kirk, McCain, Lee, and Crapo all ran ahead of Trump. Several by double-digits.

Just to clarify on two of those names....Crapo reneged on his #NeverTrump position two weeks before the election and did a re-endorsement of Trump.  Toomey simply refused to say who he was voting for, but then a day after the election claimed that he voted for Trump.  But yeah, the other names you mention were all #NeverTrump.

[Vosem]

Well, Joe Heck in NV, Trump ran ahead of.

Trump and Heck both lost by the exact same margin -- 2.4%. Unusually, the third-party vote was actually higher in the Senate race than the presidential one, so Trump did run ahead of Heck in the actual margin.

So, this one doesn't quite fit the pattern, but it's also doesn't completely work as a counterexample, especially since Heck wasn't in fact an incumbent and came just as close to winning as Trump did.

Again, the only politician anywhere in the country who was unambiguously hurt by her anti-Trump stance was Roby.

It's pretty clear that the general electorate outside of the Deep South is not just tolerant of NeverTrump Republicanism, but outright willing to reward it. There's no other way to explain that every NeverTrump Republican Senator except for the one facing a multi-candidate race ran ahead of Trump. This was true even in the areas where Trump improved so dramatically -- Ohio voted for Trump by 8 points, and for its incumbent NeverTrump Senator by 21. Toomey, Portman, Ayotte, Kirk, McCain, Lee, and Crapo all ran ahead of Trump. Several by double-digits.

Just to clarify on two of those names....Crapo reneged on his #NeverTrump position two weeks before the election and did a re-endorsement of Trump.  Toomey simply refused to say who he was voting for, but then a day after the election claimed that he voted for Trump.  But yeah, the other names you mention were all #NeverTrump.

I mean, refusing to endorse Trump the way Toomey did is the definition of #NeverTrump, even if Toomey was pretty quiet about it. You're correct about Crapo taking it back; so did what would otherwise have been an extremely interesting case study, Jeff Fortenberry in rural Nebraska, who spent months as #NeverTrump before quietly endorsing him; Fortenberry (who was reelected 69/31) ran far ahead of Trump (who won the district 58/36), and is the only electoral evidence we have that Plains voters didn't particularly mind #NeverTrump behavior (though we have indirect evidence that many of their Representatives or Senators were at least willing to flirt with #NeverTrump, whereas Roby was completely unique and isolated in the Deep South). Senate races are enough to conclude that Mountain West voters, including non-Mormons, didn't give two sh**ts.

[vote for pedro]

It's pretty clear that the general electorate outside of the Deep South is not just tolerant of NeverTrump Republicanism, but outright willing to reward it. There's no other way to explain that every NeverTrump Republican Senator except for the one facing a multi-candidate race ran ahead of Trump. This was true even in the areas where Trump improved so dramatically -- Ohio voted for Trump by 8 points, and for its incumbent NeverTrump Senator by 21. Toomey, Portman, Ayotte, Kirk, McCain, Lee, and Crapo all ran ahead of Trump. Several by double-digits.

The only officeholder punished for a NeverTrump stance was Martha Roby, in rural Alabama. It's pretty clear that no region of America besides the Deep South actually saw fit to punish NeverTrump.

Now, as for the primary elections? Those could be different. But that remains to be seen.

You're not correct on Carter.  Carter publicly said he would vote for McGovern, but wouldn't campaign for him.  McGovern didn't reveal that he voted for Ford during the campaign; that didn't happen until after he left the Senate.

Carter tried, shamelessly, to get McGovern to pick him as his running mate.  Truthfully, McGovern should have taken him up on it. 

Candidates who abandon their national ticket can often keep getting re-elected in their state if the national ticket is out of sync with the state's party, but it still kills their chances if they want to run for President.  This is exactly what happened to Rockefeller, he turned to the right after 1970, but it was never enough for the GOP's conservatives, who never forgave his apostasy.  Democrats who were silent on McGovern were some of the first casualties of the 1974 move by the Democratic caucus to end the seniority system.  I cannot think of a single Presidential or Vice Presidential nominee of either party who bucked their party's Presidential nominee by refusing to support them, and made it onto the ticket after that.  Indeed, until this year, the only ticket members who I can remember not endorsing the nominee AFTER being on the ticket were Joe Lieberman (who actually campaigned for McCain and was almost HIS VP candidate) and MAYBE John Sparkman in 1972. 

Rockefeller was already too far left for the GOP in 1964; he never sought forgiveness from the GOP's conservatives and never got it. It is true that the casualties of the post-1974 purges were mostly those who had been silent about McGovern, but it's also true that there was no complete purge, and many of those people who had been silent (like Carter, who I cannot find any of evidence of that he voted for McGovern, and lots of evidence that he refused to campaign for him while leaving his vote ambiguous) continued to hold prominent roles in the Democratic Party for decades.

People who were on the ticket who refused to support a later ticket? Yeah, before 2016 that would've been unusual -- Lieberman is the only example I can think of. John Sparkman was actually a very close personal of friend of McGovern's; they traveled abroad together on several occasions and Sparkman certainly voted for McGovern.

Mark Kirk ran ahead of Trump.  That is a very misleading claim to make.  Incumbent senator Kirk lost by 15 points in a bloodbath.  He may have had a few more votes than Trump in Cook but he certainly didn't run ahead of Trump in the other 101 counties.  In a state that Trump wasn't trying to win but Kirk was.

[ag]

Because he din't want to go to Hell.

[JoshPA]

Cause kasich is a neocon.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Primary season flashback:

I have respect for the Republicans who say they won't support Trump.  Some of them have deep policy differences, some of them are afraid of alienating Democrats they need to be re-elected, and some honestly don't like his persona.  What I don't have respect for are those Republicans who put Trump down, call him a bigot, racist, etc, but then say he's better than Hillary, so they'll support him if he's the nominee.  They're only better than the cowards who won't answer the question on the grounds that "Trump's not going to be the nominee."

That does kind of sum up John Kasich.  And Jeb!  And Mittens.

[RI]

All the signs are he's still running in 2020. He's the perfect anti-Trump.

[ApatheticAustrian]

simple:

he is old, not running for anything before MAAAAAAAAYBE 2020, doesn't need trump's approval, his party machine hates trump too ans his voters are the last strain of rockefeller republicans.

he is free to stay principled, other than the career worms rubio and cruz.

[mgop]

because kasich is croat and you can't trust them no but seriously kasich is a warmonger who wanted to go in syria even if that could start wwiii, and trump want to finish that war. kasich donors obviously care the most about foreign policy, and second reason is that kasich is term limited as governor of ohio and don't have to worry about revenge from voters.

[impactreps]

I think there's a few factors that went into it, but I choose to believe that he genuinely thought Trump was unfit to be President and thought him not to be a decent person. Maybe I'd just like to believe there are some prominent Republicans who are courageous enough to take flak from the base to say what they believe.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

So let's count the reasons:

1. He's pretty much done with politics after he leaves office
2. He's more principled than the others.
3. He, like pretty much everyone else, thought Trump was going to lose.
4. So he can look better in 2020, or so he thought.
5. He disagreed with Trump on trade and immigration.
6. He was bribed by the Clintons
7. He wants to replace Chris Matthews on MSNBC.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Because he has a conscience, unlike any of the other GOP candidates who did endorse Trump.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Because he has a conscience, unlike any of the other GOP candidates who did endorse Trump.

If Kasich's conscience was so troubled that he couldn't vote for Trump, he had an obligation to support Clinton.  If his conscience wouldn't let him do either, he needed to make the case for a third party candidate that he could support.

He also had a duty to tell us WHY Trump was so bad.  If he was THAT BAD to where a sitting Governor was going against the choice of his own party, and a candidate where Republicans in his own state were enthusiastic, then he needed to spell out, specifically, the reasons why this was so. 

That he couldn't do it was an indication that he didn't have enough of a conscience to risk any meaningful political capital beyond an amorphous non-endorsement.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Because he has a conscience, unlike any of the other GOP candidates who did endorse Trump.

If Kasich's conscience was so troubled that he couldn't vote for Trump, he had an obligation to support Clinton.  If his conscience wouldn't let him do either, he needed to make the case for a third party candidate that he could support.

He also had a duty to tell us WHY Trump was so bad.  If he was THAT BAD to where a sitting Governor was going against the choice of his own party, and a candidate where Republicans in his own state were enthusiastic, then he needed to spell out, specifically, the reasons why this was so. 

That he couldn't do it was an indication that he didn't have enough of a conscience to risk any meaningful political capital beyond an amorphous non-endorsement.

He wrote in John McCain on the ballot.

[BuckeyeNut]

Kasich actually has a spine (though you couldn't necessarily tell given his posture), and he really is building to a primary in 2020. He's got a book coming out, and his former campaign manager and chief communications guy are starting a corresponding organization.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Because he has a conscience, unlike any of the other GOP candidates who did endorse Trump.

If Kasich's conscience was so troubled that he couldn't vote for Trump, he had an obligation to support Clinton.  If his conscience wouldn't let him do either, he needed to make the case for a third party candidate that he could support.

He also had a duty to tell us WHY Trump was so bad.  If he was THAT BAD to where a sitting Governor was going against the choice of his own party, and a candidate where Republicans in his own state were enthusiastic, then he needed to spell out, specifically, the reasons why this was so. 

That he couldn't do it was an indication that he didn't have enough of a conscience to risk any meaningful political capital beyond an amorphous non-endorsement.

He wrote in John McCain on the ballot.

That's a cop-out if there ever was one.  "I wrote in John McCain!".  Self-indulgence.  Lincoln Chaffee wrote in Bush 41 in 2004 and he wonders why his career went down the toilet.

If both candidates were so bad that neither deserved Kasich's vote, he should have campaigned for Johnson, explaining why he was doing so.  This would have had the effect of shifting the vote margin in Ohio, of Kasich leaving a meaningful mark.  If he had a moral case to make against Trump, he'd have been a Profile in Courage.  Instead, he's nothing but a self-indulgent jerk who spent whatever good will he had.