Talk Elections

This is really becoming more likely, especially since he just said that neither party cares about the poor.

I would consider voting for him if the Democrats nominate another corporate shill.

If Kasich runs in 2020, I think an independent campaign is probably his most likely route. It's nearly impossible to defeat an incumbent president in the primaries, and if he had good infrastructure and decent connections, he could all but guarantee ballot placement in every state.

()


Former Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE)/Governor Roy Cooper (D-NC) - 473 EV 41% PV

President Donald Trump (R-NY)/Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN) - 65 EV 34% PV

Former Governor John Kasich (I-OH)/Former CIA director Evan McMullin (I-UT) - 0 EV 21% PV

He should do it to moderate the GOP and crack it in half in order to get its proverbial head on straight.

Also Medal, just a quick point out, EM was an OPSO (operations officer) at the Agency and not the Director.

()
262: Kamala Harris/Pete Buttigieg - 40.6%
235: Donald Trump/Mike Pence - 37.0%
41: John Kasich/Jim Matheson - 21.2%
Others - 1.2%

I think you have Kasich doing too well in the South. The Democratic nominee would likely get >40% in VA, GA, NC, and Florida. I doubt Kasich would keep Trump below 40% in Kentucky, Tennessee, or Mississippi as well. if Kasich does this well, Clinton wins MS and probably LA too.

I wonder about Ohio.  Many think it will swing towards Kasich, but, assuming pre-2016-election polling is true, Kasich would take a large amount of the votes from Trump, but Trump would also keep many Republicans. There's a good chance the state would go for the Democrat.

I think the breakdown would be something like 30% Trump, 33% Kasich, 38% Democrat in Ohio.

It would probably be a terrible idea, and we would end up with another election of 1912. If Kasich just wants to run to ruin Trump, I guess it would make sense.

Imagine that: something like Trump vs. Booker vs. Kasich vs. Sanders.

In such a scenario, I think Kasich wins Ohio, Sanders wins Vermont, Trump wins KY, WV, TN, AR, OK, NE-CD 3 and maybe one or both of the Dakotas, while Booker wins everything else.

good for Democrats

If Kasich wants to do this (not sure he does), he probably needs a Dem running mate (some washed-up ex-officeholder).

My suspicion is that Kasich is trying to leave his doors open. If Trump is unpopular in 2019, primary him. If Trump is solid with the GOP but underwater everywhere else, go Indy. If Trump is a raging success, go into exile stay out of the race.

Kasich: 933,886
Democrat: 766,349
Trump: 713,404   

If Kasich won Ohio as a third party, it would be by a very slim margin. probably something like 35% Kasich, 33% Trump, 33% Clinton.

Seems about right, though I would probably give Kamala Harris Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, Florida, and maybe even New Hampshire.

This would be even better if Sanders joins the race as an independent.

If Kasich ran against Trump in the GOP primary, I would strongly consider switching parties to vote for him in the primary.

It's nearly impossible to win as an Indy too.  In any case, many people run for president despite having no realistic chance of winning.  It happens all the time.  And there's an argument to be made for running for the GOP nomination rather than running 3rd party: It takes the "spoiler" argument off the table.  If you're running 3rd party, and are a distant 3rd place in the polls, then many will dismiss you out of hand because what's the point of "throwing your vote away" when the real contest is between the Dem. and GOP nominees?  Whereas if you challenge Trump in the primary and you're his only main opponent for the nomination, then that's a moot point.

I would not rule out either Kasich or some other "mainstream" GOP politico (most likely someone who, like Kasich as of 2020, no longer holds political office and has nothing to lose) challenging Trump in the primary.  Of course, they're not going to win, just like Buchanan was never going to beat Bush in the 1992 primary.  The point wouldn't be to win.  It'd be to lay down a marker as a sort of act of protest against the Trump-ified version of the GOP.  There's a reasonable chance that some kind of challenge like that will come from either the "center" (in the form of Kasich or someone Kasich-like), or from the libertarian wing of the party (most likely Amash or Paul).  Of course, the challenge won't succeed, but a Buchanan-like showing of more than 20% of the national popular vote in the primaries isn't out of the question.

I would vote for Kasich. I'm a centrist.

Today I watched Kasich and Hickenlooper give a press conference on the health care bill, and now they're being interviewed on CNN together. An independent Kasich/Hickenlooper ticket would be really interesting.

()
Democrats: Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)/ Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-TX) 217 EVs 24% PV
Republicans: President Donald Trump (R-NY)/ Vice President Mike Pence (R-IN) 83 EVs 22.5% PV
Independent Moderates: Former Governor John Kasich (R-OH)/ Former Governor John Hickenlooper (D-CO) 101 EVs 22% PV
Democratic Socialists: Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)/ Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) 137 EVs 21% PV
Libertarians: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)/ Justin Amash (R-MI) 0 EVs 10.5% PV
There was brutal infighting within both parties as Trumps scandals worsen (he is impeached over obstruction of justice after Democrats take the house in 2018 and is acquitted by a two vote margin) , the AHCA passes and result in an even larger increase in premiums and millions unable to afford coverage, the economy slows down to a halt as a recession is pending, Trump invades Iran and Syria, and a divisive primaries result in third party bids. Kasich primaries Trump as a moderate centrist option, and Rand Paul runs as a libertarian leaner and both lost handily to Trump. The Democratic primaries begin with 20 candidates which later ends as a contest Bernie and Booker after Super Tuesday. Bernie represents the progressive wing and the WWC while Booker goes after black and brown voters. Bernie ends with with a small delegate lead, but Booker's Super PACs bribe most superdelegates and delegates of states won by other candidates. Booker wins the Democratic nomination on the second round of voting, and Bernie storms out of the convention hall and announces his bid for the White House the following morning. The general election campaigns are brutal, but satisfying for voters as 40 million adults register to vote for the first time as people realize that there will be no wasted votes in any state this election. Trump enters the general election with a 19% approval rating due to the large casualties in his incompetently fought wars and orders the troops to shoot thousands of protesters during the Labor Day anti-war protests of 2020 across America in which 20 million Americans participated in as well as continued turmoil in Congress, and race relations continue to spiral out of control. The biggest surprise on election day was when Trump reached 4th place in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives must choose between Booker, Sanders, and Kasich. Congressional Democrats split between Booker and Sanders while Kasich narrowly wins with the hesitant support of most Republicans as some far-right Republicans abstain from voting. Kasich is later inaugurated and must re-unify the country as he pledges to work with the Democratic controlled congress to combat the collapsing economy and end the wars.

Kasich is a Republican who isn't far from where the party actually is.

If he's had an epiphany about poor folks, he ought to switch and become a Democrat.  He'd have a better chance to be President trying to run as a moderate Democrat.  Not that it would be easy, and it would probably fail, but an Independent Kasich 2020 bid would DEFINITELY fail.

At some point, a Kasich - type candidacy is probably likely to happen as a third party candidacy. The goal would be to split the Republican Party and would likely be successful.

What do ya'll think of this scenario?

No. Sanders wouldn't win any states besides Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts.

What a fascinating, morbid, but plausible story. I can see how Trump's presidency could result in so much turmoil.
I see two things wrong:
1) Maine can't split its EC votes 3 ways like that. Can it? You've got what I presume to be ME-01 voting by a plurality for Sanders/Gabbard, ME-02 voting by a plurality for Trump/Pence, but ME-AL voting by a plurality for Kasich/Hickenlooper? That does not make sense.
2) I can only county 117 EC votes for Sanders/Hickenlooper, but 121 EC votes for Kasich/Hickenlooper. If PA were light green instead of light yellow, then your numbers would be correct.

Reads like something out of the House of Cards writers' room.

Sure Maine can.

ME-1:
Sanders/Gabbard: 25%
Kasich/Hickenlooper: 24%
Trump/Pence: 20%

ME-2:
Trump/Pence: 25%
Kasich/Hickenlooper: 24%
Sanders/Gabbard: 20%

With that result, Kasich/Hickenlooper wins the state with 24% of the vote.

It's mathematically possible, albeit very unlikely.  Imagine this scenario, for example:

CD1:
Sanders 36%
Kasich 34%
Trump 30%

CD2:
Trump 36%
Kasich 34%
Sanders 30%

You can then average the two CDs to get a rough estimate of the statewide totals, which would be:
Kasich 34%
Sanders 33%
Trump 33%

So Kasich wins statewide, despite coming in second in both CDs.

:O

No joke I thought this wasn't possible.  Thank you for proving this to me lol.

Check out my timeline based on this. I did edit the electoral vote totals by keeping Pennsylvania yellow with 117 for Sanders/Gabbard and 121 for Kasich/Hickenooper. I also put a 20% win option (even lighter shades) for many states on my edited map since the vote is split between 5 almost equally competitive candidates. I'm glad you're interested.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=267650.0

Read my timeline!
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=267650.0

FYI: I re-told your story in a post on my Facebook timeline, albeit phrasing the story in my own vernacular. Just like I said above, I started my post by saying that this story is fascinating, morbid, but plausible. At then end I asked my FB friends "Doesn't that sound plausible?"
My brother said, "I'll be off at the bar if you need me ....."
One friend just said, "Wow."
Another friend, who was a big fan of Kasich last year, said, "Kasich should have won in 16."

I thought I explained it, too. :P

Oh lol sorry I kinda just started reading from the end backwards XD

It could hurt them by taking away moderate voters.

I know I will sound stupid with this question, but do independents have primaries?

Regards,
MorganKingsley

No. Only political parties have primaries. Independent candidates run without being attached to any party. Third party candidates like the Green and Libertarian nominees go through the same kind of primary process as Democrats and Republicans.

No wonder why people run as independents. They don't have to worry about any of that

Regards,
MorganKingsley

First of all, I would support John Kasich over Trump and the Democratic nominee easily. Kasich isn't a loony leftist like the Democrats, nor is he an ignoramus like Trump.

But putting aside my opinion for the moment, it is possible he can take votes equally from Trump and the Democratic nominee. It depends who the Democrats nominate.

In a generic (D) Vs. Trump race, I think Kasich takes away slightly more from Trump than the Democrats. He appeals to moderate suburban voters, soccer moms, and professionals who identify as Republicans but who aren't big fans of Trump. Never Trump conservatives and libertarians won't be voting for Kasich in large numbers, those I suspect a few will.

If the Democrats nominate a far-left candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Cory Booker, it's possible Kasich hurts the Democrats more because independents are driven away from the party's nominee. If they nominate someone like Joe Biden, then Kasich still hurts Trump more than the Democrats.

Kasich wouldn't win Ohio.

15% of the vote

I feel like Trump would actually win with a Kasich run. He pulled more like Johnson than Trump. And like Johnson, Kasich would be considered the option for people that wanted to vote republican but not Trump. And is Johnson had not run and split the vote, Trump would have won the popular vote by 1.5 million or so, and probably gotten around 340 votes instead of 306. If Kasich does the same and pulls from Trump, it would show that the Republicans in general would have a far greater poll when both are added up, showing that Trump would indeed have won the popular vote and electoral vote when both combine

Regards,
MorganKingsley

*bump*

Here's what Kasich said this morning:

https://twitter.com/TeddyDavisCNN/status/914485128835026944

He seems to be moving away from saying “unlikely” to everything

()

355: whoever the Democrats nominate
53: Donald Trump/Mike Pence
120: John Kasich/Jon Huntsman
Others - 1.2%

Not only does the incumbent President get the sort of drubbing that Hoover got in 1932 and Carter got in 1980 in the Electoral College -- he also ends up in third place!

Most of the Kasich/Huntsman wins are really close. Alaska, Georgia, Iowa,  and Missouri are really-close wins for the Democrat.

Almost on par with 1912 for Trump.

He's more likely to screw the Dems than the GOP if Gary Johnson 2016 is any guide.  An anti-establishment Indie trying to out populist Trump would hurt him the most.

Gary Johnson took more GOP voters than Democrat. Gary Johnson voters voted downballot Republican by a margin of 20% more than they did Democrat.

Jill Stein, however, probably took more Democrat voters than GOP.

Yes, but they were the quintessential Clinton-Republican demographic.  Do you really think Johnson voters in PA-06, NC-13, AZ-09, etc. would have broken for Trump?  Johnson gave disgusted Romney voters an out and prevented Clinton from swinging enough of them in enough key places.  He's probably the single greatest reason Trump won.

Perhaps, but all of this is just conjecture. We have literally no way of knowing what these voters would have voted (or if they would have even voted at all) if Gary Johnson was not on the ballot. Hillary was pretty toxic for a lot of republican voters. Every person that loses in a fairly close race with a third party loves to blame the third party for why they lost lol.

The only thing you could I guess say for sure is Gary Johnson's presence may have slightly improved the GOP in house/senate races, as maybe some of the Gary Johnson republican-leaning voters would not have voted had he not been on the ballot.

Ballot access is the big obstacle for both third parties and independents.

Many "independent" candidates run slates of electors put up by minor parties with ballot access in a given state, provided that the particular party isn't something that would embarrass them.  Or they create parties in some states.  (New York requires candidates to be the candidate of a party.)  Florida actually allows someone to run a slate of electors not being pledged to an party.  

Truthfully, I don't see the rationale for a 3rd party candidacy by Kasich.  If he wants to be President, his only course of action is to flat-out challenge Trump in the primary.  There's no other way.

Kasich's best case scenario as a indy is 15% and winning Utah and maybe Alaska and Ohio it also depends a lot on his vp here's a list of good options for him to choose as a vp
Charlie Baker
Bruce Rauner
Susan Collins
Mitt Romney (probably one of the best choices)
Lisa  Murkowski
and of course John Hickenlooper
If I was Kasich I would probably ask Hickenlooper and if he said no then I would ask Mitt  

Bill Weld noted that their campaign was stealing votes from Trump, at least according to their own internal polls.

Of course this braying doofus Kasich might go another way.

Link (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-ticket-cost-trump-the-popular-vote/article/2614458)

Governor Weld said that Johnson-Weld internal polling showed that 75 percent of their voters would have voted for Donald Trump had they not been in the race.

There was an exit poll question on this (How would you have voted if it was a binary choice between Clinton and Trump?), but the results were given as what %age of Clinton 2-way voters voted 3rd party in real life and what %age of Trump 2-way voters voted 3rd party in real life.  But you can do algebra to get at the reverse question: What %age of 3rd party voters would have voted for Clinton or Trump in a hypothetical 2-way race?

The result is that ~63% of people who voted 3rd party claim that they would have stayed home in a 2-way race, while the remaining 37% were evenly split between Clinton and Trump.  There's no breakdown between Johnson and Stein voters though.  All 3rd party voters were lumped together.  My guess is that Stein voters were more likely to say Clinton while Johnson voters were a little more likely to say Trump.  But that assumes that people were honestly stating their intentions in this hypothetical world where their favored candidate wasn't an option.  It's possible that many of the 63% who said they would have stayed home wouldn't have actually stayed home, for example.

I can't see the underlying premise of an Independent Kasich campaign.

I can see the underlying premise of a Kasich challenge to Trump.  Kasich has always been a Republican; he was part of the House Republican Leadership when they moved into the majority in 1994, and was a viable Presidential candidate in 2000, after which he became a part of the FOX News stable with his show "Heartland".  Kasich could be a credible primary challenger to Trump, and one that the rest of the GOP might get behind. 

I'll say this:  If Kasich were the "Establishment" candidate instead of Bush and Rubio, Trump may not have prevailed.  That didn't happen, however.  Kasich was the strongest GE candidate in the polls early on, but the folks that mattered couldn't come around to see it.

I agree that it makes more sense for Kasich to challenge Trump in the primary than to run as an independent.  My hunch, though, is that his teasing the possibility of leaving the party is actually a precursor to him ditching the party once Trump is renominated: Kasich runs in the 2020 GOP primary, but loses to Trump.  And then once he loses, he once again refuses to endorse Trump in the general election, but this time says that he's leaving the GOP altogether, because there's no place for him in a Trump-ified GOP.  He'll no longer be governor of Ohio at this point, so he'll be free to just follow his conscience, wherever it takes him.


I think the right Republican primary challenger to Trump could get a decent amount of support from certain right-of-center pundits (like Bill Kristol and Erick Erickson), as well as now-retired Republican politicians like Mitt Romney (if he doesn't run for Senate) and Jeb Bush.  But I would be very surprised if very many *current* Republican politicians end up endorsing Kasich or any other potential primary challenger.  I guess it might happen, but endorsing a primary challenge to your party's incumbent president?  That seems like a big line to cross, and my gut says few will want to do it.  Much more common will be Republican politicians who remain neutral in the primaries, but then endorse the nominee in the general election.

As far as a primary challenger who is actually able to get a decent amount of support among regular Republican primary voters as opposed to elites....I'm not sure how much difference it makes who it is, as people might just see it as an anti-Trump protest vote, and they'll vote for the person or not depending on their opinion of Trump.  But to the extent that it does matter, I actually think Kasich would probably be a dud.  He seems determined to attack Trump from Trump's left on everything, and there just aren't that many "moderates" in the party today.  I think an Amash or a Paul might have a higher ceiling in a primary challenge to Trump, because they can attack Trump for the right and the center at the same time.

Even Ted Cruz admits that moderate Republicans are not an endangered species amongst the voters.

It depends on what you mean by "moderate Republicans".  My point is simply that the bulk of the people who actually vote in Republican primaries think of themselves as "conservative", even if they don't all agree on what conservative means.

And so, in the event that enough Republicans sour on Trump to create an opening for a primary challenger to get even ~25% or more of the vote, some of those people who might otherwise be open to voting for a Trump challenger will probably be turned off if the challenger is spending all his time talking about things like Medicaid expansion, which sounds too much like the kind of Trump critique you get from Democrats.  They might be open to some attacks on Trump from the center, but only if it's paired with other attacks on Trump from the right, with arguments about how he's "betrayed conservatism".  Kasich's critiques of Trump so far sound too much like Democratic critiques for him to get enough traction in a Republican primary, IMHO.

What's interesting is Kasich's rules changing minority party requirement thresholds will make it more difficult for him to run as an independent in Ohio