Would Hillary Have Done Better In Rural Areas Had Kasich Been The Nominee?

[AtorBoltox]

Why exactly do people here think that a candidate who managed to win only their home state in the primaries would be some super unstoppable juggernaut in the general?

This is a silly argument.

"Why exactly do people think Mike Castle or Richard Lugar would be good candidates in the general? They couldn't even beat Christine O'Donnell or Richard Mourdock in the primary!"

Kasich might have won, but it’s absurd for people to say that he’d ‘easily’ beat Hillary and get 350 electoral votes when the primaries clearly showed he was not a good candidate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2006&fips=18&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&minper=0

I don't know if you've noticed, but Dick Lugar and John Kasich are different people! You can lose a primary while potentially being a better general election candidate, sure. No evidence suggests that Kasich is a particularly strong candidate though, or was  at all in touch with the mood of the electorate of 2016.

[Annatar]

In my opinion, Hillary would not have done much better in rural areas had Kasich been the nominee, the shift towards the GOP of voters outside of the major urban areas in the Midwest is a trend that has been underway for some time, Obama was I would argue somewhat of an exception which proved the rule and any GOP candidate would have done better then Romney in the rural Midwest.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

In my opinion, Hillary would not have done much better in rural areas had Kasich been the nominee, the shift towards the GOP of voters outside of the major urban areas in the Midwest is a trend that has been underway for some time, Obama was I would argue somewhat of an exception which proved the rule and any GOP candidate would have done better then Romney in the rural Midwest.

This.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why exactly do people here think that a candidate who managed to win only their home state in the primaries would be some super unstoppable juggernaut in the general?

This is a silly argument.

"Why exactly do people think Mike Castle or Richard Lugar would be good candidates in the general? They couldn't even beat Christine O'Donnell or Richard Mourdock in the primary!"

Kasich might have won, but it’s absurd for people to say that he’d ‘easily’ beat Hillary and get 350 electoral votes when the primaries clearly showed he was not a good candidate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2006&fips=18&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&minper=0

I don't know if you've noticed, but Dick Lugar and John Kasich are different people! You can lose a primary while potentially being a better general election candidate, sure. No evidence suggests that Kasich is a particularly strong candidate though, or was  at all in touch with the mood of the electorate of 2016.

[Sumner 1868]

Why exactly do people here think that a candidate who managed to win only their home state in the primaries would be some super unstoppable juggernaut in the general?

This is a silly argument.

"Why exactly do people think Mike Castle or Richard Lugar would be good candidates in the general? They couldn't even beat Christine O'Donnell or Richard Mourdock in the primary!"

Kasich might have won, but it’s absurd for people to say that he’d ‘easily’ beat Hillary and get 350 electoral votes when the primaries clearly showed he was not a good candidate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2006&fips=18&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&minper=0

I don't know if you've noticed, but Dick Lugar and John Kasich are different people! You can lose a primary while potentially being a better general election candidate, sure. No evidence suggests that Kasich is a particularly strong candidate though, or was  at all in touch with the mood of the electorate of 2016.

Meaningless. His 2010 victory was thin and he had to abandon much of his agenda to get those reelection numbers.

[AtorBoltox]

Why exactly do people here think that a candidate who managed to win only their home state in the primaries would be some super unstoppable juggernaut in the general?

This is a silly argument.

"Why exactly do people think Mike Castle or Richard Lugar would be good candidates in the general? They couldn't even beat Christine O'Donnell or Richard Mourdock in the primary!"

Kasich might have won, but it’s absurd for people to say that he’d ‘easily’ beat Hillary and get 350 electoral votes when the primaries clearly showed he was not a good candidate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2006&fips=18&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&minper=0

I don't know if you've noticed, but Dick Lugar and John Kasich are different people! You can lose a primary while potentially being a better general election candidate, sure. No evidence suggests that Kasich is a particularly strong candidate though, or was  at all in touch with the mood of the electorate of 2016.

Hillary's a super strong candidate in rural areas! Just look at the 2006 senate results!

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes. Trump got a segment of rural/blue collar voters who normally don't vote to show up to come out and vote for him based on personality, brand, and making a direct appeal to them through topics like trade and immigration. Kasich did none of those things and would have ended up with Romney-type margins in rural areas.

[uti2]

In my opinion, Hillary would not have done much better in rural areas had Kasich been the nominee, the shift towards the GOP of voters outside of the major urban areas in the Midwest is a trend that has been underway for some time, Obama was I would argue somewhat of an exception which proved the rule and any GOP candidate would have done better then Romney in the rural Midwest.

Obama was quite literally one of the main architects of that trend. You can even look at Gore's performance in comparison to Obama's. Or you can look at hypothetical Clinton v. Mccain maps from '08. Obama is sizably responsible for the purge of the blue dog democrats.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why exactly do people here think that a candidate who managed to win only their home state in the primaries would be some super unstoppable juggernaut in the general?

This is a silly argument.

"Why exactly do people think Mike Castle or Richard Lugar would be good candidates in the general? They couldn't even beat Christine O'Donnell or Richard Mourdock in the primary!"

Kasich might have won, but it’s absurd for people to say that he’d ‘easily’ beat Hillary and get 350 electoral votes when the primaries clearly showed he was not a good candidate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?year=2006&fips=18&f=0&off=3&elect=0&class=1&minper=0

I don't know if you've noticed, but Dick Lugar and John Kasich are different people! You can lose a primary while potentially being a better general election candidate, sure. No evidence suggests that Kasich is a particularly strong candidate though, or was  at all in touch with the mood of the electorate of 2016.

Hillary's a super strong candidate in rural areas! Just look at the 2006 senate results!

Ohio is also nowhere near as solidly Republican as New York is Democratic.



Lastly if that version of Hillary ran against Trump , she would have easily won(she would have would won all the states Obama won in 2012 with maybe the exception of Florida).

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Kasich would not have won MI and WI and probably not PA.

It is quite possible that Hillary would have won the EV and lost the PV versus Kasich.  There would have been no McMullen candidacy, and Kasich would have done better in GA, TX, and probably a few other Southern states.  Kasich would not have carried the Maine CD Trump carried.  

It would have been a 259-259 tie with PA deciding the matter.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Kasich would not have won MI and WI and probably not PA.

It is quite possible that Hillary would have won the EV and lost the PV versus Kasich.  There would have been no McMullen candidacy, and Kasich would have done better in GA, TX, and probably a few other Southern states.  Kasich would not have carried the Maine CD Trump carried.  

It would have been a 259-259 tie with PA deciding the matter.

Dumb post. Ron johnson beat Feingold by 4% and Pat Toomey won by 1.5%. Both are far right conservatives. Trump being seen as a moderate wasn't what win him these states when far right republicans did way better than Trump.

2016 was a generic republican win, not a trump win. It's actually really easy to beat a person with 40% favorables (Hillary)

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Kasich would not have won MI and WI and probably not PA.

It is quite possible that Hillary would have won the EV and lost the PV versus Kasich.  There would have been no McMullen candidacy, and Kasich would have done better in GA, TX, and probably a few other Southern states.  Kasich would not have carried the Maine CD Trump carried.  

It would have been a 259-259 tie with PA deciding the matter.

Dumb post. Ron johnson beat Feingold by 4% and Pat Toomey won by 1.5%. Both are far right conservatives. Trump being seen as a moderate wasn't what win him these states when far right republicans did way better than Trump.

2016 was a generic republican win, not a trump win. It's actually really easy to beat a person with 40% favorables (Hillary)

Toomey won because Pennsylvania rarely dumps its incumbent Senators.  Rick Santorum in 2006, Harris Wofford in 1994, and Joseph Clark in 1968 were the only examples I can think of.  Santorum and Wofford lost in wave elections.  Clark lost to LIBERAL Republican Richard Schweiker over the issue of gun control. 

Johnson won because of Trump's boost to the ticket and because Feingold is an overrated candidate. He's actually underperformed in every race he's run in since 1992.  He's someone Wisconsin has gotten tired of; his act grew stale.  (Robert Kasten, a Republican Senator with an alcohol problem, won in 1986 which was a BIG Democratic year.)

[uti2]

Kasich would not have won MI and WI and probably not PA.

It is quite possible that Hillary would have won the EV and lost the PV versus Kasich.  There would have been no McMullen candidacy, and Kasich would have done better in GA, TX, and probably a few other Southern states.  Kasich would not have carried the Maine CD Trump carried.  

It would have been a 259-259 tie with PA deciding the matter.

Dumb post. Ron johnson beat Feingold by 4% and Pat Toomey won by 1.5%. Both are far right conservatives. Trump being seen as a moderate wasn't what win him these states when far right republicans did way better than Trump.

2016 was a generic republican win, not a trump win. It's actually really easy to beat a person with 40% favorables (Hillary)

So going by that logic you're saying that Rick Santorum would've won a presidential election in 2000 since he won that senate race fairly easily while Bush simultaneously lost?

[uti2]

Kasich would not have won MI and WI and probably not PA.

It is quite possible that Hillary would have won the EV and lost the PV versus Kasich.  There would have been no McMullen candidacy, and Kasich would have done better in GA, TX, and probably a few other Southern states.  Kasich would not have carried the Maine CD Trump carried.  

It would have been a 259-259 tie with PA deciding the matter.

Dumb post. Ron johnson beat Feingold by 4% and Pat Toomey won by 1.5%. Both are far right conservatives. Trump being seen as a moderate wasn't what win him these states when far right republicans did way better than Trump.

2016 was a generic republican win, not a trump win. It's actually really easy to beat a person with 40% favorables (Hillary)

Toomey won because Pennsylvania rarely dumps its incumbent Senators.  Rick Santorum in 2006, Harris Wofford in 1994, and Joseph Clark in 1968 were the only examples I can think of.  Santorum and Wofford lost in wave elections.  Clark lost to LIBERAL Republican Richard Schweiker over the issue of gun control.  

Johnson won because of Trump's boost to the ticket and because Feingold is an overrated candidate. He's actually underperformed in every race he's run in since 1992.  He's someone Wisconsin has gotten tired of; his act grew stale.  (Robert Kasten, a Republican Senator with an alcohol problem, won in 1986 which was a BIG Democratic year.)

Toomey is indeed another story, but Johnson was benefited by democratic turnout decline and that raises an interesting question. How come Clinton was successful in generating turnout in the SW, but so unsuccessful in generating turnout from traditional democratic regions?

When you look at the exact demographics and regions Clinton targeted, she was successful in obtaining the votes for those demos, the trade-off just didn't work in terms of the electoral college. Had she run a more traditional democratic turnout focused campaign instead of the republican outreach strategy, she probably generates more democratic votes at the expense of republican crossover voters. So, in that scenario, Feingold-Johnson may as well have come down to a Hassan-Ayotte style race.

But here is the more interesting part in terms of Clinton's strategy, all the establishment republicans were following the same type of demographic targeting strategy Clinton utilized (Clinton embraced the fundamental assumptions of the GOP autopsy strategy down to the T) , and Clinton originally didn't intend to implement this strategy, she was originally going to follow Obama 2012 and reach out to the democratic base.

Going by the implications of that paradox, you may as well have seen the GOP establishment's Clinton-esque strategy of ignoring Trump voters while courting suburban democrats fail in a manner similar to Clinton.

[Joey1996]

Clinton would have beaten Kasich with a 2012 like map

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Clinton would have beaten Kasich with a 2012 like map

2012 Obama states minus FL and OH?

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

The big unanswered question of 2016 will always be whether the GOP could have won with an establishment Republican, by winning greater numbers among all voting blocs instead of just primarily the rural areas and the WWC.

Romney in 2012 fell short in Florida by about 1 percent, lost Ohio by 3, and lost Virginia by about 4 percent.  We might assume that Kasich would have beaten Hillary in all three states, given that Kasich was from Ohio, and given that Hillary was just all around a weaker candidate than Obama, and that there was the normal 8 year itch to turn the White House over to the out party in 2016.  Also, Kasich would have played well in NOVA.

That gets Kasich to 266 electoral votes.  Finding him another state gets tricky.  Obama won New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Colorado by 5-6 points each in 2012.  Kasich would basically have to eke out a victory in one or more of those states to win.  The election would basically be a toss-up with perhaps a very slight D tilt.  Wisconsin and Michigan would probably have remained lean-D blue wall states.

It's possible that Republicans would have maxed out at 266 electoral votes in a universe where Trump doesn't change the template in WWC areas and rural areas.  In that sense, Trumpism might outlast Trump.

Kasich winning Virginia and Florida is a dubious proposition. Florida is all about turnout and Kasich was as bland as it gets. Trump was also more favorable to social security than most republicans and gave the old voters red meat in the form of minor culture war issues like "the war on Christmas." Virginia's trend to the left from demographics wouldn't go away and it's hard to think that Kasich appeals to many people who weren't already Romney voters.

Of course, the entire proposition is impossible because a Kasich primary victory would have required either A) the electorate being completely and utterly different B) an alternative universe where Trump didn't run or C) convention shenanigans that would have split the GOP and led to a Clinton landslide.

[uti2]

The big unanswered question of 2016 will always be whether the GOP could have won with an establishment Republican, by winning greater numbers among all voting blocs instead of just primarily the rural areas and the WWC.

Romney in 2012 fell short in Florida by about 1 percent, lost Ohio by 3, and lost Virginia by about 4 percent.  We might assume that Kasich would have beaten Hillary in all three states, given that Kasich was from Ohio, and given that Hillary was just all around a weaker candidate than Obama, and that there was the normal 8 year itch to turn the White House over to the out party in 2016.  Also, Kasich would have played well in NOVA.

That gets Kasich to 266 electoral votes.  Finding him another state gets tricky.  Obama won New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, and Colorado by 5-6 points each in 2012.  Kasich would basically have to eke out a victory in one or more of those states to win.  The election would basically be a toss-up with perhaps a very slight D tilt.  Wisconsin and Michigan would probably have remained lean-D blue wall states.

It's possible that Republicans would have maxed out at 266 electoral votes in a universe where Trump doesn't change the template in WWC areas and rural areas.  In that sense, Trumpism might outlast Trump.

Kasich winning Virginia and Florida is a dubious proposition. Florida is all about turnout and Kasich was as bland as it gets. Trump was also more favorable to social security than most republicans and gave the old voters red meat in the form of minor culture war issues like "the war on Christmas." Virginia's trend to the left from demographics wouldn't go away and it's hard to think that Kasich appeals to many people who weren't already Romney voters.

Of course, the entire proposition is impossible because a Kasich primary victory would have required either A) the electorate being completely and utterly different B) an alternative universe where Trump didn't run or C) convention shenanigans that would have split the GOP and led to a Clinton landslide.

Rubio won his FL senate race, though I should point that Rubio was always polling very differently in FL in terms of senatorial (with a decent margin v. Murphy) and presidential (statistical deadheat) polling.


https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_rubio_vs_clinton-3553.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/senate/fl/florida_senate_rubio_vs_murphy-5222.html

[TJ in Oregon]

Kasich would not have won MI and WI and probably not PA.

It is quite possible that Hillary would have won the EV and lost the PV versus Kasich.  There would have been no McMullen candidacy, and Kasich would have done better in GA, TX, and probably a few other Southern states.  Kasich would not have carried the Maine CD Trump carried.  

It would have been a 259-259 tie with PA deciding the matter.

Dumb post. Ron johnson beat Feingold by 4% and Pat Toomey won by 1.5%. Both are far right conservatives. Trump being seen as a moderate wasn't what win him these states when far right republicans did way better than Trump.

2016 was a generic republican win, not a trump win. It's actually really easy to beat a person with 40% favorables (Hillary)

Ron Johnson outperformed Trump because he was more palatable to Never Trumpers (including yours truly!) while being sufficiently pro-Trump enough that the Trump people mostly voted for him. Yes, Feingold being unpopular also helped, but Feingold was less unpopular than Hillary.

What I think happened was that Trump brought in a large number of people across the rural parts of the state who either don't normally vote or normally vote Democratic. Most of those people voted mostly Republican downballot because of Trump and his endorsements. Without him, those people don't show up and vote for Johnson. A comfortable win in Wisconsin in a presidential year requires significant support from both groups and with Kasich as the presidential nominee, Johnson wouldn't get that. Now Johnson is himself a better candidate than Kasich is, so he might have still been able to pull it off, but all the maps would have looked quite a bit like a replay of 2012.