How would you have reacted to this result?

[Politician]

Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine: 278 EVs, 49%
John Kasich/Susana Martinez: 260 EVs, 47%

I'm curious how the forum that thinks Kasich would have won a landslide would react if Hillary hypothetically beat him. Would we talk about how Hillary is a god and how Trump would have lost a landslide?

[here2view]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

[IceSpear]

People would definitely say Hillary would've demolished Trump in a historic landslide if this result happened. But, I highly doubt it would. Trump actually underperformed the vast majority of Republicans in 2016, so it seems highly unlikely that a more traditional Republican would do worse than him.

[IceSpear]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

And, if all of the Republicans who had been winning in those states in the past 10 years were "Trumpish," these claims would hold more weight.  However, I think a Republican COULD break through the "Blue Wall" (RIP, FW!) with a slightly different map than Trump.

[Politician]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

Straight ticket voting is a big thing, you know, and no one got the rural WWC on board like Trump.

[RINO Tom]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

Straight ticket voting is a big thing, you know, and no one got the rural WWC on board like Trump.

So are you suggesting that these rural WWC who would only vote for Trump but no other Republican made up some huge population of straight-ticket Republican voters...?

[Xing]

Atlas would probably insist that Rubio would've beaten Hillary in a 360 EV landslide. Oh wait, many people do that anyway. Oh well. And they'd also be in shock that Nevada could possibly go Democratic with Susanna Martinez as VP making it Lean/Likely R

I probably wouldn't be that surprised at this result.

[TDAS04]

I would have been happy about Hillary's victory.  Granted, a Republican win would not have been as horrifying as RL.

I wouldn't have been surprised about Martinez falling short in delivering New Mexico to Kasich.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

TBF, over 50% of the ridiculous Kasich over-hyping can be attributed to one poster.

[here2view]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

TBF, over 50% of the ridiculous Kasich over-hyping can be attributed to one poster.

Yeah, that is correct - like the thought of Kasich possibly winning Oregon in 2016.

I just feel like I see way too much praise for a guy that's not as moderate as he is portrayed, although it's usually from less than a handful of people in total.

[MT Treasurer]

Maybe this could have been the map in a Kasich (R) vs. extremely strong Democrat (who somehow defies the eight year itch and GOP enthusiasm in general), but the idea that this would have been plausible in a Clinton (D) vs. Kasich (R) race is nothing but revisionist history from bitter Clinton supporters and hardcore Trumpists.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I would run after Carlos Lopez DeCantera with a crowbar, JK people.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

I wouldn't be surprised at all. I also wouldn't be surprised if Hillary adds Florida and ME-02 on top of that.

LOL at the idea that only hardcore Hillary or Trump supporters would think this.

Kasich is a fatter, uglier, poorer, Midwestern Mitt Romney.

[Senator Incitatus]

I'd be pretty surprised.

Lots of comments so far saying Kasich isn't as moderate as people think... but that's the point. People think he's moderate, and people vote the way they think. He had stellar approvals, for a presidential candidate. It's not like nobody knew who he was or what his record was. Every indicator says he would have no trouble winning against Clinton, and that's all we can use as a basis for speculation.

Unless someone knows of some October surprise they're keeping secret in case Kasich runs again, his argument is as strong as Sanders's. I think each would have won pretty easily. Atlas gets lost in the weeds when the answers are usually just as simple as four words: who do people like?

[Fmr. Speaker anna0kear]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

Congressional (and gubernatorial even more so) is so very different from national/federal presidential elections, though...candidates matter way more (i.e. local issues, popularity, strong campaigning) as do the way the winds blow (political conditions) which also means that it will lead to greater swings and volatility, in both directions. Thus, why we've elected a D gov in WV, a D sen in AL, an R gov in VT, MA, MD, etc. (all since 2016) despite their "usual" solidity.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Kasich is massively overrated by this forum. The amount of 20/20 hindsight/revisionist history that people evoke when talking about him is ridiculous. He tries to pass off as a moderate when his views on abortion are some of the most conservative I've ever seen, so I don't believe that everyone would "rally around good ol' moderate John" as he wins over 50% of the vote and clears 320+ electoral votes. He may have won in 2016, but he wouldn't have performed better than Trump IMO.

People were making fun of him in 2016 for staying in the primary too long before dropping out. He has been propped up to be far superior of a candidate than he actually was, and if you were paying attention in the GOP primary you'd see that. Cruz got almost double the votes and Rubio won more delegates than he did.

And I don't have anything against Kasich personally. He's far more respectable than most Republicans, in that he's not a religious nut like Cruz or a d-bag like Trump. The people who prop him up to be more than he actually is bothers me.

As for this result, that's basically what I would have expected.

The narrative that Trump was the "only candidate who could break through the blue wall" seems to rely on us ignoring the fact that Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, and the vast majority of House Republicans did better than he did.

Straight ticket voting is a big thing, you know, and no one got the rural WWC on board like Trump.

So are you suggesting that these rural WWC who would only vote for Trump but no other Republican made up some huge population of straight-ticket Republican voters...?

Yeah that's a pretty silly notion.

[twenty42]

I'd be pretty surprised.

Lots of comments so far saying Kasich isn't as moderate as people think... but that's the point. People think he's moderate, and people vote the way they think. He had stellar approvals, for a presidential candidate. It's not like nobody knew who he was or what his record was. Every indicator says he would have no trouble winning against Clinton, and that's all we can use as a basis for speculation.

Unless someone knows of some October surprise they're keeping secret in case Kasich runs again, his argument is as strong as Sanders's. I think each would have won pretty easily. Atlas gets lost in the weeds when the answers are usually just as simple as four words: who do people like?

Kasich wasn’t liked, though. Numbers don’t lie.

[I Can Now Die Happy]

@twenty42: Yep, and Kasich could very well have lost his image as a reasonable moderate because of the dynamics of the GOP Primary process and the scrutiny that being the nominee for a major party brings.

It isn't far fetched for Hillary to utilize her billion dollar warchest to successfully chip away at that image. What does Kasich even have once you take that away from him?

He arguably has that image because he was such a massive loser in the primaries that his best route was to frame himself that way to be rewarded with positive coverage by a media desperate for a "this Republican isn't crazy" narrative.

If he's smart, he didn't go down that route to actually try to win, but to bathe in the validation, and after all - "prominent politician at odds with the rest of their party" is a niche that always needs to be filled until the end of eternity.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The belief that Kasich is some ultraconservative on Abortion is totally unconnected to the facts. He's more conservative on abortion than most Democrats, but his position is pretty close to the median voter.

[libertpaulian]

Kasich wouldn't win ME-02.  Oh, and the bellwethers of FL and OH wouldn't vote with the loser.

[courts]

kasich wasn't going to win the primaries let alone the general

[TheSaint250]

#RubioWouldHaveWon

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The environment was R-leaning. Clinton was just about the most unpopular major party nominee in history. Kasich would have slaughtered her.