CNN: Kasich, Hickenlooper consider unity presidential ticket in 2020

[DrScholl]

Sounds like moderate hero fan fiction. This sort of unity ticket would never happen, because the bipartisan paradise many people hope for is non-existent.

[Dr. Arch]

Only if Hickenlooper is at the head of the ticket

[SoLongAtlas]

I would vote for this ticket if the Dems put up a far left, SJW ticket. We need a viable third party to end the hyperpartisanship in this country.

[The Mikado]

If this ticket had run in 2016, I could've seen it getting 5-7% (thoroughly cannibalizing most of Johnson's and McMullin's support plus some off of Clinton and Trump). I'm working off of the assumption that well over half of Gary Johnson's support was people too disgusted to vote for either Clinton or Trump rather than ideological Libertarians, which seems like a pretty safe guess given that Johnson himself isn't an ideological Libertarian.

I have a feeling voters are going to be a LOT more gun-shy about voting third party next election.

[Suburbia]

As a centrist, I can see myself voting for this ticket potentially.

[MarkD]

As a centrist, I can see myself voting for this ticket potentially.

Me too, however, Kasich and Hickenlooper have got to make it clear that their appointees to the Supreme Court will not be chosen because they are "moderates," but because they are objective.

[Saint Milei]

Both candidates are horrendous

[ProgressiveCanadian]

As a centrist, I can see myself voting for this ticket potentially.

Trollolol.

[Dr. MB]

No. But Kasich should primary Trump.

[President Johnson]

Johnny should either primary the God Emperor or become a Democrat.

[Inmate Trump]

Kasich should primary Trump in 2020 and if he's unsuccessful just endorse whoever the Democratic nominee is.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Johnny should either primary the God Emperor or become a Democrat.

Something like this, yes.

I cannot see how labor unions would stomach Kasich as a Democrat, however.  Kasich had a TV show on FOX News.  He's been anti-union from the beginning of his career.  If Democrats actually welcome Kasich into their party "as is", it would be a sign that they've abandoned the labor movement as a constituency that matters.

[TJ in Oregon]

Johnny should either primary the God Emperor or become a Democrat.

Something like this, yes.

I cannot see how labor unions would stomach Kasich as a Democrat, however.  Kasich had a TV show on FOX News.  He's been anti-union from the beginning of his career.  If Democrats actually welcome Kasich into their party "as is", it would be a sign that they've abandoned the labor movement as a constituency that matters.

Kasich isn't really a Democrat or a liberal or a left-winger in any sincere way, he merely wants desperately to be loved by the cultural drivers of the day: the media, the DC consultant class, the banking industry, the quintessential upscale socially liberal/fiscally conservative caricature types, etc. Perhaps its from a kind of vanity, perhaps from a kind of insecurity, misplaced trust of the people around him; I have no idea. But if he runs as a third party, I'm quite sure that labor unions are not the type of Democrats who would be supportive of him.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

If this ticket had run in 2016, I could've seen it getting 5-7% (thoroughly cannibalizing most of Johnson's and McMullin's support plus some off of Clinton and Trump). I'm working off of the assumption that well over half of Gary Johnson's support was people too disgusted to vote for either Clinton or Trump rather than ideological Libertarians, which seems like a pretty safe guess given that Johnson himself isn't an ideological Libertarian.

I have a feeling voters are going to be a LOT more gun-shy about voting third party next election.

I would say that's a fair assessment all around. The poll that showed that 10% of Sanders supporters went for Trump also showed that 34% of Kasich supporters went to Clinton. There's probably some people that are ancestral Republicans and would've voted for Clinton anyway, but there's probably a decent chunk who would've voted for Kasich if he was the nominee (or even just someone other than Trump).

Basically we'd be looking at an Anderson 1980 redux. Who knows how the Dems and Reps would do in respect to each other though. It could be a 1980 redux with the Dems and Reps flipped.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Johnny should either primary the God Emperor or become a Democrat.

Something like this, yes.

I cannot see how labor unions would stomach Kasich as a Democrat, however.  Kasich had a TV show on FOX News.  He's been anti-union from the beginning of his career.  If Democrats actually welcome Kasich into their party "as is", it would be a sign that they've abandoned the labor movement as a constituency that matters.

Which it seems they have, with the exception of public-employee unions.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Kasich really wants to be President, a challenge to Trump in the primary is his only way, period.

I cannot see what Kasich and Hickenlooper have in common, other than an alternative to Trump.  They're not real "Independent" or "Third Party" candidates; they'd be a (R) and (D) coalition slate.  Why would a voter support them on that basis?  That's a real question, and the answer is far from clear.

It CAN'T be that Trump is THAT bad.  If he's THAT bad, that would demand that the GOP unify and support Kasich.  But the Republicans, who claimed that Trump was THAT bad had the opportunity to get behind Gary Johnson and William Weld, two (2) Republican Governors, and they didn't.  Surely Johnson was better than Trump, the crazy man, was he not?  Oh, I'm sorry, that's not the conclusion most Republicans came to.

Trump's behavior is either (A) really not that bad, or (B) something the entire GOP is in supercalifragilisticexpialidocious denial about.  Do they really believe that Trump's sideshow isn't really that's harmful, nothing but a tut-tutting point?  Or do they really view him as harmful, but are "managing their addiction" because he's their Signer-In-Chief?  If Trump were the threat to the Republic that the #NeverTrump crew say he is, why didn't the GOP bolt in larger numbers? 

[Mr. Morden]

Trump's behavior is either (A) really not that bad, or (B) something the entire GOP is in supercalifragilisticexpialidocious denial about.  Do they really believe that Trump's sideshow isn't really that's harmful, nothing but a tut-tutting point?  Or do they really view him as harmful, but are "managing their addiction" because he's their Signer-In-Chief?  If Trump were the threat to the Republic that the #NeverTrump crew say he is, why didn't the GOP bolt in larger numbers? 

Obviously, the answer is that much of the GOP elite disagrees with GOP voters over how bad Trump is.

That said, maybe the disagreement isn't quite as big as it's made out to be.  It's not like every single Republican in the country voted for Trump last November.  If we go to the exit polls, it says that 33% of those who showed up at the polls last November identified themselves as Republicans.  And among those voters, the vote went like this:

Trump 88%
Clinton 8%
3rd party 4%

So that's 12% of self-identified Republican voters going for someone other than Trump.  But that may well be an "underestimate" in the sense that some of the voters who opted for Romney in 2012 but went Clinton or 3rd party in 2016 may have simply chosen not to identify as Republicans anymore in 2016.  So there may have been some churn in partisan loyalties: Some Dems and Republicans swapping loyalties between the 2012 and 2016 elections, which caused some of the big swings among certain demographics, like the widening education gap between the parties that emerged in 2016.  Maybe ~15% each way?

15% is also probably about the same as the percentage of Republicans in Congress who refused to endorse Trump last year.  So in that sense, Republican elites were actually representative of the voters in their party.  A small but non-negligible %age of them refused to support their party's nominee.

What was different this time is that there's always a small but non-negligible %age of a party's voters who won't support their party's presidential nominee, but usually among the party's elected officials there's near-unanimous support, and that didn't happen for Trump last year.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Haha, looks like more FAKE NEWS from CNN!

[Mr. Smith]

A reverse John Anderson would be a welcome sight.