Is American Conservatism a "hollowed-out ideological shell"?

[OSR stands with Israel]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

Rubio/Cruz aren't that different besides some superficial traits. All of those traits would be attacked.

He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

Rubio supports Immigration Reform , Cruz does not


Rubio also didnt propose a flat tax like cruz did

Rubio wanted 0% tax rates on capital gains/dividends. So basically you're saying immigration? Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

W Bush also supported eliminating tax rates on dividends : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/us/bush-budget-plan-would-eliminate-tax-on-dividends.html

Marco Rubio is George W Bush 2.0 not Ted Cruz 2.0

That's even worse.

You hate Dubya more than Cruz ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Cruz is a former Bush guy. He is a Texas Republican, it is basically all on the tin. The only exception would be Paulites of course.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Keep in mind when you take away the controversies of Trump, the discussion invariably moves to the controversial policies espoused by Cruz, Rubio and Kasich.

All fall, you would have heard how horrible John Kasich is, and that he hates women because of the bills he signed in Ohio.

Rubio and Cruz would have both been hit on extreme positions and also inexperience.

Keep in mind, that part of why Trump won, was because Democrats focused all on his character, and there were enough angry, pissed off working class guys in the Midwest who thought Trump crazy enough to rip up NAFTA, spend a trillion on infrastructure and put tariffs on China.

Rubio, Cruz and Kasich would have had to charge up Little Round Top (NOVA).

[HillGoose]

Americans don't realize we are at war with those who want to destroy us. Don't let the liberal media tell you Saddam didn't have WMDs that he would funnel to Al-Qaeda. Listen to Georges Sada and Hannity.

Darryl Worley- Have You Forgotten?

What's the point of this charade? If you're going to play a character on the internet, at least choose one based off a more prescient archetype, i.e. not some neocon weirdo from the early noughties.

it's not a character though, it's who I am. I legitimately believe these things. It's hard for internet people to understand.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Keep in mind when you take away the controversies of Trump, the discussion invariably moves to the controversial policies espoused by Cruz, Rubio and Kasich.

All fall, you would have heard how horrible John Kasich is, and that he hates women because of the bills he signed in Ohio.

Rubio and Cruz would have both been hit on extreme positions and also inexperience.

Keep in mind, that part of why Trump won, was because Democrats focused all on his character, and there were enough angry, pissed off working class guys in the Midwest who thought Trump crazy enough to rip up NAFTA, spend a trillion on infrastructure and put tariffs on China.

Rubio, Cruz and Kasich would have had to charge up Little Round Top (NOVA).

Kasich would have won by 7 points IMO as he can combine both the Trump coalition along with the Bush Jr Coalition . There is nothing Hillary could attack Kasich on without being attacked on the same thing as well.  Also Jill Stein would have done much better than she did in OTL as the GOP nominee wasnt as scary as


In my opinion this would be the Hillary vs Kasich map

If Jill Stein wins 3.5-4% of the vote in Oregon Kasich wins Oregon too as PVI + Stein taking votes away from Hillary makes Oregon flip.




Lastly the idea that Kasich cant appeal to Working Class Voters is just not true , and here's proof of that:

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Rubio vs Hillary map IMO would basically be the 04 map except Rubio Wins WI and ME-2 while he loses NM.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Keep in mind when you take away the controversies of Trump, the discussion invariably moves to the controversial policies espoused by Cruz, Rubio and Kasich.

All fall, you would have heard how horrible John Kasich is, and that he hates women because of the bills he signed in Ohio.

Rubio and Cruz would have both been hit on extreme positions and also inexperience.

Keep in mind, that part of why Trump won, was because Democrats focused all on his character, and there were enough angry, pissed off working class guys in the Midwest who thought Trump crazy enough to rip up NAFTA, spend a trillion on infrastructure and put tariffs on China.

Rubio, Cruz and Kasich would have had to charge up Little Round Top (NOVA).

Kasich would have won by 7 points IMO as he can combine both the Trump coalition along with the Bush Jr Coalition . There is nothing Hillary could attack Kasich on without being attacked on the same thing as well.  Also Jill Stein would have done much better than she did in OTL as the GOP nominee wasnt as scary as


In my opinion this would be the Hillary vs Kasich map

If Jill Stein wins 3.5-4% of the vote in Oregon Kasich wins Oregon too as PVI + Stein taking votes away from Hillary makes Oregon flip.




Lastly the idea that Kasich cant appeal to Working Class Voters is just not true , and here's proof of that:

Easiest way to win a landslide - Collapse Democratic turnout. Doesn't make your an electoral god. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did in 2010, which he barely won. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes, because their candidate sucked.

Remember 2014 had the worst turnout since 1942, always keep that in mind when citing any election result from that year.

2016 Presidential
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   2,841,006   51.31%   18
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   2,394,169   43.24%   0

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   2,827,709   50.58%   18
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   2,661,437   47.60%   0

2014 Governor
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,944,848   63.64%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   1,009,359   33.03%

2010 Governor
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   1,889,186   49.04%
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   1,812,059   47.04%

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

1. Tommy Thompson also won in 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, but that didn't make it go for Bush 41 or 43. "Best suburban performance since 1988"? No Republican has won all four Philly suburban counties since Arlen Specter in 2004, and he is dead. Tom Corbett couldn't even get Montco and Delco in 2010 and he freakin won Allegheny Count outright. The key thing you are forgetting is, those suburbs were lost on generational change and defections on the abortion issue. Kasich is very conservative on that issue and that would be been the focus of the Democratic strategy in SE PA.

2. Maps and percentages can be misleading. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did when he barely edged a win in 2010. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes. Kasich didn't flip many votes, the vast majority stayed home. I will say again, 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942, remember that caveat always when citing 2014 data.

Mahoning County:
2014:
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   35,578   53.68%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   28,376   42.81%

2010:
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   56,228   65.76%
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   26,566   31.07%

Kasich +9,000   Dems - 28,000 If turnout was the same. this county would have voted 57% Dem 43% Kasich or thereabouts. It voted 53% Kasich, because 20,000 voters just disappeared.

2016 Presidential
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   57,381   49.48%
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   53,616   46.23%

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   77,059   63.38%
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   42,641   35.07%

By comparison, there was about a 7,000 vote decline between 2012 and 2016, when you account for 2,000 more Gary Johnson votes. Trump gained 11,000 over Romney and Clinton lost 20,000 votes. Trump got 20,000 more votes than Kasich in 2014 and almost 30,000 votes more than Kasich in 2010.

[uti2]

I feel like this description is still too generous.

This.

Makes me laugh that people actually think Hillary would've lost to the others

Kasich would have landslided Hillary , and Rubio would have beaten her as well

Rubio/Cruz aren't that different besides some superficial traits. All of those traits would be attacked.

He doesn't have any actual moderating policies of note when you look beyond the superficialities.
His policies for the most part are the same as Cruz, so electorally he'd functionally end up as equivalent to Cruz following the facade breaking down.

Rubio supports Immigration Reform , Cruz does not


Rubio also didnt propose a flat tax like cruz did

Rubio wanted 0% tax rates on capital gains/dividends. So basically you're saying immigration? Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

W Bush also supported eliminating tax rates on dividends : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/06/us/bush-budget-plan-would-eliminate-tax-on-dividends.html

Marco Rubio is George W Bush 2.0 not Ted Cruz 2.0

Jeb and Kasich were Bush 2.0. Rubio was closer to Cruz than Bush. He attacked Kasich for expanding medicare, when that's what Bush did.

Capital Gains =/ Dividends. High Net Worth individuals/Wealthy CEOs earn almost all of their entire income from Capital Gains, they would be taxed at zero.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

1. Tommy Thompson also won in 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, but that didn't make it go for Bush 41 or 43. "Best suburban performance since 1988"? No Republican has won all four Philly suburban counties since Arlen Specter in 2004, and he is dead. Tom Corbett couldn't even get Montco and Delco in 2010 and he freakin won Allegheny Count outright. The key thing you are forgetting is, those suburbs were lost on generational change and defections on the abortion issue. Kasich is very conservative on that issue and that would be been the focus of the Democratic strategy in SE PA.

2. Maps and percentages can be misleading. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did when he barely edged a win in 2010. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes. Kasich didn't flip many votes, the vast majority stayed home. I will say again, 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942, remember that caveat always when citing 2014 data.

Mahoning County:
2014:
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   35,578   53.68%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   28,376   42.81%

2010:
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   56,228   65.76%
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   26,566   31.07%

Kasich +9,000   Dems - 28,000 If turnout was the same. this county would have voted 57% Dem 43% Kasich or thereabouts. It voted 53% Kasich, because 20,000 voters just disappeared.

2016 Presidential
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   57,381   49.48%
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   53,616   46.23%

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   77,059   63.38%
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   42,641   35.07%

By comparison, there was about a 7,000 vote decline between 2012 and 2016, when you account for 2,000 more Gary Johnson votes. Trump gained 11,000 over Romney and Clinton lost 20,000 votes. Trump got 20,000 more votes than Kasich in 2014 and almost 30,000 votes more than Kasich in 2010.

You also forget PVI when doing you electoral college calculations. Also Kasich was leading Hillary by 8-10 in the polls whenever they matched up.


The question is what would Hillary attack Kasich on to make up for that polling deficit


- Lehmen Brothers(For Which Kasich can attack Hillary for Goldman Sachs)

- His position on  Abortion( He opposed the Heartbeat bill , and supported a 20-24 week abortion ban which is supported by most Americans)

- His economic policies(Which would not work like they would on Rubio and Cruz as Kasich has a good economic record as the governor of Ohio).

- His support of NAFTA and the TPP(Which Kasich can point out Bill signed NAFTA and Hillary called TPP the gold standard)

- His position on Iraq(which is nearly identical to Hillary's )


on the other Hand Hillary would not be able to get away from these problems:

- The Email Scandal

- The Democratic party base not being enthusiastic enough to vote for Hillary while the GOP base would still be enthusiastic to vote Kasich as they hated Hillary that much. On the other hand Kasich would not come up across like Trump was in OTL which means much of the base stays home or voters for Stein.

- Kasich being much more popular than her among independents  


- Her being a bad campaigner in general

- Incumbency Fatigue



All this would give Kasich around a 6.5-7 point victory and using the PVI numbers from 2012 this would be the map if that were the case:

Kasich 353
Hillary 185


Now due to NM shifting even more to the left PVI wise over the past 4 years I would say Hillary wins NM, but ME would go to Kasich as ME has swung pretty far to the right since 2012. Also  OR also may go to Kasich as according to both 2012 and 2016's PVI Oregon would only be won by the dem by 1 point and with Stein doing much better than OTL that could flip the state to Kasich as well.

[uti2]

2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

1. Tommy Thompson also won in 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, but that didn't make it go for Bush 41 or 43. "Best suburban performance since 1988"? No Republican has won all four Philly suburban counties since Arlen Specter in 2004, and he is dead. Tom Corbett couldn't even get Montco and Delco in 2010 and he freakin won Allegheny Count outright. The key thing you are forgetting is, those suburbs were lost on generational change and defections on the abortion issue. Kasich is very conservative on that issue and that would be been the focus of the Democratic strategy in SE PA.

2. Maps and percentages can be misleading. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did when he barely edged a win in 2010. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes. Kasich didn't flip many votes, the vast majority stayed home. I will say again, 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942, remember that caveat always when citing 2014 data.

Mahoning County:
2014:
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   35,578   53.68%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   28,376   42.81%

2010:
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   56,228   65.76%
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   26,566   31.07%

Kasich +9,000   Dems - 28,000 If turnout was the same. this county would have voted 57% Dem 43% Kasich or thereabouts. It voted 53% Kasich, because 20,000 voters just disappeared.

2016 Presidential
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   57,381   49.48%
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   53,616   46.23%

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   77,059   63.38%
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   42,641   35.07%

By comparison, there was about a 7,000 vote decline between 2012 and 2016, when you account for 2,000 more Gary Johnson votes. Trump gained 11,000 over Romney and Clinton lost 20,000 votes. Trump got 20,000 more votes than Kasich in 2014 and almost 30,000 votes more than Kasich in 2010.

You also forget PVI , Kasich was leading Hillary by 8-10 in the polls whenever they matched up.


The question is what would Hillary attack Kasich on to make up for that polling deficit :


- Lehmen Brothers(For Which Kasich can attack Hillary for Goldman Sachs)

- His position on  Abortion( He opposed the Heartbeat bill , and supported a 20-24 week abortion ban which is supported by most Americans)

- His economic policies(Which would not work like they would on Rubio and Cruz as Kasich as a good economic record as the governor of Ohio).

- His support of NAFTA and the TPP(Which Kasich can point out Bill signed NAFTA and Hillary called TPP the gold standard)

- His position on Iraq(which is nearly identical to Hillary's )


on the other Hand Hillary would not be able to get away from these problems:

- The Email Scandal

- The Democratic party base not being enthusiastic enough to vote for Hillary while the GOP base would still be enthusiastic to vote Kasich as they hated Hillary that much. On the other hand Kasich would not come up across like Trump was in OTL which means much of the base stays home or voters for Stein.

- Kasich being much more popular than her among independents  


- Her being a bad campaigner in general

There was no inherent Bush coalition. Bush barely won in 2000 by moderating to try and pick off certain voters at the margins of the Clinton coalition. This is also what Bentsen might've done in '88, and what Kasich might've done in 2016, but it would not have been a landslide. Bentsen still wouldn't have won by a landslide.

Many of the weaknesses you mention also apply to Gore (replace email scandal w/ Lewinsky) and Bush Sr. in '88 (with the iran-contra investigation, Ollie North was indicted in the summer of 1988 and this investigation continued until 1993).

Rubio/Cruz were doubling down on the Tea Party platform that forced Romney to the right while pushing their own platforms even further to the right, similar to the way Dukakis/Dewey doubled down on Mondale/Willkie.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

1. Tommy Thompson also won in 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, but that didn't make it go for Bush 41 or 43. "Best suburban performance since 1988"? No Republican has won all four Philly suburban counties since Arlen Specter in 2004, and he is dead. Tom Corbett couldn't even get Montco and Delco in 2010 and he freakin won Allegheny Count outright. The key thing you are forgetting is, those suburbs were lost on generational change and defections on the abortion issue. Kasich is very conservative on that issue and that would be been the focus of the Democratic strategy in SE PA.

2. Maps and percentages can be misleading. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did when he barely edged a win in 2010. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes. Kasich didn't flip many votes, the vast majority stayed home. I will say again, 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942, remember that caveat always when citing 2014 data.

Mahoning County:
2014:
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   35,578   53.68%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   28,376   42.81%

2010:
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   56,228   65.76%
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   26,566   31.07%

Kasich +9,000   Dems - 28,000 If turnout was the same. this county would have voted 57% Dem 43% Kasich or thereabouts. It voted 53% Kasich, because 20,000 voters just disappeared.

2016 Presidential
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   57,381   49.48%
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   53,616   46.23%

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   77,059   63.38%
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   42,641   35.07%

By comparison, there was about a 7,000 vote decline between 2012 and 2016, when you account for 2,000 more Gary Johnson votes. Trump gained 11,000 over Romney and Clinton lost 20,000 votes. Trump got 20,000 more votes than Kasich in 2014 and almost 30,000 votes more than Kasich in 2010.

You also forget PVI , Kasich was leading Hillary by 8-10 in the polls whenever they matched up.


The question is what would Hillary attack Kasich on to make up for that polling deficit :


- Lehmen Brothers(For Which Kasich can attack Hillary for Goldman Sachs)

- His position on  Abortion( He opposed the Heartbeat bill , and supported a 20-24 week abortion ban which is supported by most Americans)

- His economic policies(Which would not work like they would on Rubio and Cruz as Kasich as a good economic record as the governor of Ohio).

- His support of NAFTA and the TPP(Which Kasich can point out Bill signed NAFTA and Hillary called TPP the gold standard)

- His position on Iraq(which is nearly identical to Hillary's )


on the other Hand Hillary would not be able to get away from these problems:

- The Email Scandal

- The Democratic party base not being enthusiastic enough to vote for Hillary while the GOP base would still be enthusiastic to vote Kasich as they hated Hillary that much. On the other hand Kasich would not come up across like Trump was in OTL which means much of the base stays home or voters for Stein.

- Kasich being much more popular than her among independents  


- Her being a bad campaigner in general

There was no inherent Bush coalition. Bush barely won in 2000 by moderating to try and pick off certain voters at the margins of the Clinton coalition. This is also what Bentsen might've done in '88, and what Kasich might've done in 2016, but it would not have been a landslide. Bentsen still wouldn't have won by a landslide.

Many of the weaknesses you mention also apply to Gore (replace email scandal w/ Lewinsky) and Bush Sr. in '88 (with the iran-contra investigation, Ollie North was indicted in the summer of 1988 and this investigation continued until 1993).

Rubio/Cruz were doubling down on the Tea Party platform that forced Romney to the right while pushing their own platforms even further to the right, similar to the way Dukakis/Dewey doubled down on Mondale/Willkie.

Heres a key difference though


In 1988: 46% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 41% thought it was going in the wrong direction (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/1988-presidential-election/ ))

In 2000: 47% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 41% thought it was going in the wrong direction( https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2000-presidential-election/ )

In 2016: 31% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 62% thought it was going in the wrong direction(https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2016election/)


Those numbers do show there is a major difference between 1988 and 2016 as in 1988 the right direction numbers were +5% while in 2016 they were  -31%.



Also a 7 point win, while winning 357 electoral votes  is not a landslide win.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

2010 John Kasich, who was a fiscal hawk and had an A rating from immigration restrictionists NumbersUSA, might well have won the primary and the general election.

But after Kasich got burned in 2011 on the referendums on his version of the WI stuff, Kasich basically did what Arnold Schwartzenegger did after he got likewise burned in 2005 on the initiatives in California. He moved to the center, but not just any center. He moved to the center, by which I mean center that is what his John McCain acolyte consultant shills told him.

Kasich would not have got the Trump base, because Kasich supports open borders and unilateral free trade in the face of a protectionist China. Kasich would not have campaigned on a trillion dollars of infrastructure, the wall or renegotiating NAFTA.


And there is no such thing as "The Jeb Bush Coalition". There is no Bush coalition out there waiting for right Republican to carry it to victory. It doesn't exist. The Bush "coalition" is now buried under thousands of pissed off Millenials in NOVA, who hate the Republicans not because of Trump (though they certainly hate Trump), but because of W's elective war in the Middle East.

There is no path to victory for an outright neocon and a big part of Trump's ability to rally  higher percentages of the WWC vote was because he ran against the Iraq War and talked endlessly of the wars diverting money from Infrastructure. This is a common mindset among that kind of secular, blue collar alienated worker, whose industry has gone, particular those who were alive during the Vietnam War, that went heavily for Trump in PA, NE OH And MI. Many of these same voters went to the Democrats in 2006 when Pelosi promised to set a time table, raise the minimum wage and "drain the swamp". That was not a message aimed at San Francisco, it was a message aimed at these same voters.

At lot of these same people also voted for Reagan. Not the Reagan that promised a free trade zone from Alaska to Argentina, but the Reagan that put quotas on Japanese cars, pulled out of Lebanon to avoid a protracted conflict that wasn't in our interest and ended the stagflation in the economy.

Republican intellectuals, and conservative ideologues have tried to pretend that these people don't exist and have also white washed out of existence the inconvenient Reagan policies and positions that appealed to them. They continued to do this, even as their numbers ballooned in the GOP because of campaigns by Bush and others, as well as the unpopularity of the Democrats and their policies on coal, climate and immigration, while their preferred base slowly declined due to generational change and in-migration of diverse groups who mostly vote Democratic and have even less interest in those policies, no matter how favorable a face you you put on the immigration policy.

Kasich doenst need those exact voters to win Wisconsin(Scott Walker won there three times) or Pennsylvania as his suburban performance would be the best the GOP has done since 1988.


Kasich won those blue collar dem voters easily in (just look at the county by county map) in 2014 and he likely would do so again in 2014 .


Also if someone like Kasich won the nomination,  Jill Stein would do much much better than she did in OTL and she could possibly surpass Nader 2000 performance as the best the green party ever did.

1. Tommy Thompson also won in 1986, 1990, 1994 and 1998, but that didn't make it go for Bush 41 or 43. "Best suburban performance since 1988"? No Republican has won all four Philly suburban counties since Arlen Specter in 2004, and he is dead. Tom Corbett couldn't even get Montco and Delco in 2010 and he freakin won Allegheny Count outright. The key thing you are forgetting is, those suburbs were lost on generational change and defections on the abortion issue. Kasich is very conservative on that issue and that would be been the focus of the Democratic strategy in SE PA.

2. Maps and percentages can be misleading. Kasich got just 60,000 more votes than he did when he barely edged a win in 2010. The Democrats lost 800,000 votes. Kasich didn't flip many votes, the vast majority stayed home. I will say again, 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942, remember that caveat always when citing 2014 data.

Mahoning County:
2014:
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   35,578   53.68%
Edward FitzGerald   Sharen Swartz Neuhardt   Democratic   28,376   42.81%

2010:
Ted Strickland   Yvette McGee Brown   Democratic   56,228   65.76%
John Kasich   Mary Taylor   Republican   26,566   31.07%

Kasich +9,000   Dems - 28,000 If turnout was the same. this county would have voted 57% Dem 43% Kasich or thereabouts. It voted 53% Kasich, because 20,000 voters just disappeared.

2016 Presidential
Hillary Clinton   Timothy Kaine   Democratic   57,381   49.48%
Donald J. Trump   Michael R. Pence   Republican   53,616   46.23%

2012 Presidential
Barack H. Obama   Joseph R. Biden, Jr.   Democratic   77,059   63.38%
Willard Mitt Romney   Paul Ryan   Republican   42,641   35.07%

By comparison, there was about a 7,000 vote decline between 2012 and 2016, when you account for 2,000 more Gary Johnson votes. Trump gained 11,000 over Romney and Clinton lost 20,000 votes. Trump got 20,000 more votes than Kasich in 2014 and almost 30,000 votes more than Kasich in 2010.

You also forget PVI , Kasich was leading Hillary by 8-10 in the polls whenever they matched up.


The question is what would Hillary attack Kasich on to make up for that polling deficit :


- Lehmen Brothers(For Which Kasich can attack Hillary for Goldman Sachs)

- His position on  Abortion( He opposed the Heartbeat bill , and supported a 20-24 week abortion ban which is supported by most Americans)

- His economic policies(Which would not work like they would on Rubio and Cruz as Kasich as a good economic record as the governor of Ohio).

- His support of NAFTA and the TPP(Which Kasich can point out Bill signed NAFTA and Hillary called TPP the gold standard)

- His position on Iraq(which is nearly identical to Hillary's )


on the other Hand Hillary would not be able to get away from these problems:

- The Email Scandal

- The Democratic party base not being enthusiastic enough to vote for Hillary while the GOP base would still be enthusiastic to vote Kasich as they hated Hillary that much. On the other hand Kasich would not come up across like Trump was in OTL which means much of the base stays home or voters for Stein.

- Kasich being much more popular than her among independents  


- Her being a bad campaigner in general

There was no inherent Bush coalition. Bush barely won in 2000 by moderating to try and pick off certain voters at the margins of the Clinton coalition. This is also what Bentsen might've done in '88, and what Kasich might've done in 2016, but it would not have been a landslide. Bentsen still wouldn't have won by a landslide.

Many of the weaknesses you mention also apply to Gore (replace email scandal w/ Lewinsky) and Bush Sr. in '88 (with the iran-contra investigation, Ollie North was indicted in the summer of 1988 and this investigation continued until 1993).

Rubio/Cruz were doubling down on the Tea Party platform that forced Romney to the right while pushing their own platforms even further to the right, similar to the way Dukakis/Dewey doubled down on Mondale/Willkie.

Heres a key difference though


In 1988: 46% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 41% thought it was going in the wrong direction (https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/1988-presidential-election/ ))

In 2000: 47% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 41% thought it was going in the wrong direction( https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2000-presidential-election/ )

In 2016: 31% of the country believed things in the country was going in the right direction while 62% thought it was going in the wrong direction(https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/presidential-elections/2016election/)


Those numbers do show there is a major difference between 1988 and 2016 as in 1988 the right direction numbers were +5% while in 2016 they were  -31%.



Also a 7 point win, while winning 357 electoral votes  is not a landslide win.

It is a landslide by today's standards.

Also keep in mind that right track/wrong track has been wildly negative since probably 2005/2006. This is in large measure because of the economy, but also because Republicans do not like their own politicians and so it would naturally be so since Democrats and indies will be hostile obviously and a large number of perpetually dissatisfied Republicans. Also a large number of Democrats being minorities, would have reason to say wrong track, because of race relations and their economic condition not improving as fast as everyone else's.

Basically the one thing everyone can agree on, is everything is screwed up in the country. Therefore, Right Track/Wrong Track is probably a flawed indicator compared to the 1980's or 1990's.

[HisGrace]

Conservatism as an intellectual movement is dead now. It's a movement for internet trolls.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is why Trump running as being "anti-establishment" and attacking "elitists" made no sense. You're conservatives. You're supposed to like elitists and think they make the best decisions. That's the whole premise of being conservative- knowledge from experience and context, not outsiders coming in and "shaking things up". They ditched all that though just because the "elitist" critique was an excuse to attack the Clintons. That's all it's about, just attack liberals on anything, no intellectual center to it.

[junior chįmp]

Wanna know how low Conservatism has gotten...the Heritage Institute has hired Sebastian Gorka:

https://t.co/EyAJYqtHNZ?amp=1

[OSR stands with Israel]

Conservatism as an intellectual movement is dead now. It's a movement for internet trolls.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is why Trump running as being "anti-establishment" and attacking "elitists" made no sense. You're conservatives. You're supposed to like elitists and think they make the best decisions. That's the whole premise of being conservative- knowledge from experience and context, not outsiders coming in and "shaking things up". They ditched all that though just because the "elitist" critique was an excuse to attack the Clintons. That's all it's about, just attack liberals on anything, no intellectual center to it.

Trump is not a conservative


The Republican Party from 1980-2008 was conservative as they believed in

-  Cutting Taxes across the board

- Free Trade

- American involvement in world affairs is a good thing

-  High Skilled Immigration was a good thing

-  Pro Business Economic Policies

[darklordoftech]

You hate Dubya more than Cruz ?

I absolutely hate the man who incentivized schools to become prisons, started a surveillance program, and invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 far more than I hate a Senator who opposes one of those things and wasn't involved in the other two.

Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

Dole was far more hostile to immigration than Clinton was.

[HillGoose]

You hate Dubya more than Cruz ?

I absolutely hate the man who incentivized schools to become prisons, started a surveillance program, and invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 far more than I hate a Senator who opposes one of those things and wasn't involved in the other two.

Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

Dole was far more hostile to immigration than Clinton was.

How did Bush incentivize schools to become prisons?

Also, the surveillance programs are necessary, and don't let the liberal media make you think that Saddam didn't have WMDs that he would funnel to Al-Qaeda, or strike the East coast himself. Look up Iraqi general Georges Sada, it's clear that Assad has Saddam's weapons now. That's why Syria needs a pro-American government.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You hate Dubya more than Cruz ?

I absolutely hate the man who incentivized schools to become prisons, started a surveillance program, and invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 far more than I hate a Senator who opposes one of those things and wasn't involved in the other two.

Bill Clinton easily won hispanics while campaigning against illegal immigration in the 90s. It's not a left/right issue.

Dole was far more hostile to immigration than Clinton was.

don't let the liberal media make you think that Saddam didn't have WMDs that he would funnel to Al-Qaeda, or strike the East coast himself. Look up Iraqi general Georges Sada, it's clear that Assad has Saddam's weapons now.

There you go again...

[darklordoftech]

How did Bush incentivize schools to become prisons?

No Child Left Behind punishes states for students leaving school.

[pbrower2a]

Nobody should be surprised that evangelical voters are sticking with the GOP.

I’ve been watching evangelical voting behavior since I worked for Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation in the 1980s, and I’ve come to believe that, in most cases (though certainly not all), white evangelicals get their religion from their politics, not their politics from their religion.

That is, many evangelicals are first and foremost political conservatives drawn to a church (or a pastor) that confirms their worldviews and, in turn, their political views.

They gravitate to evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches that are spread across the American landscape, particularly in rural and small-town America, because those churches hold views about the Bible and human behavior that are traditional rather than pragmatic. Not surprisingly, most of those church members are politically conservative, particularly on social/cultural issues but increasingly also on the role of government.

.......

If Moore does win – and he is more likely than not to defeat Democrat Doug Jones – it will be because white evangelicals find his politics more important than his morality.

http://sturothenberg.com/2017/11/28/why-evangelicals-stick-with-donald-trump-roy-moore/

(Stuart Rothenberg)

Note that in the original item, Rothenberg recognizes that some Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists take the Gospel of Jesus seriously and hold the Gospel of Greed in contempt.