The 2016 map if Kasich was the nominee?

[LAKISYLVANIA]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Kasich wouldn't have won because he was Kasich. Kasich would have won because he wasn't Clinton.

[RINO Tom]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Uh, yes.  Lol

[Sumner 1868]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Uh, yes.  Lol

Insightful.

Kasich's 2010 gubernatorial margin was smaller than Drumpf's 2016 win in the state, and he got reelected simply because he had no serious challenger. His big crusade (eliminating collective bargaining for public employees - basically the Walker agenda) got annihilated by ballot measure 61-38. Oh, and he has the personality of a cardboard box.

Yeah, I'm seeing an obvious loser whose whole career is running in easy elections. And Clinton didn't lose because she was Clinton, that's just a narrative people are using in anticipation of Drumpf not getting reelected.

[MT Treasurer]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Uh, yes.  Lol

Don’t waste your breath with them, it’s fruitless.

[Sumner 1868]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Uh, yes.  Lol

Don’t waste your breath with them, it’s fruitless.

Kasich is not some juggernaut. Most Democrats would have lost to Drumpf.

[LiberalDem19]

Probably does better in the Sunbelt because conservative Latino/Latina voters (the Ana Navarro types) aren't turned off of him like they are with Trump. But he also doesn't get the same turnout with rural white voters.

The map would probably look more like 2004. Kasich gets Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and Texas/Arizona/Georgia aren't close.

Clinton keeps Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, but Iowa and Ohio flip. Minnesota probably is a comfortable Democratic victory.

The coasts go blue, but are closer. Like, Washington would go blue by 10 instead of 15.

[Mr. Smith]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Uh, yes.  Lol

Don’t waste your breath with them, it’s fruitless.

Kasich is not some juggernaut. Most Democrats would have lost to Drumpf.

And without the popular vote. At this point, it's pretty clear that Hillary actually was the best shot for the year [well, after a much more with-it Biden turned it down].

[RINO Tom]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Uh, yes.  Lol

Don’t waste your breath with them, it’s fruitless.

Kasich is not some juggernaut. Most Democrats would have lost to Drumpf.

And without the popular vote. At this point, it's pretty clear that Hillary actually was the best shot for the year [well, after a much more with-it Biden turned it down].

You’re not telling us something we haven’t heard; we don’t agree.

[AtorBoltox]

Can't really say who'd win but either way there'd be record low voter turnout

[😥]

[Kingpoleon]

...people seriously think Kasich would have won 2016?

Uh, yes.  Lol

Insightful.

Kasich's 2010 gubernatorial margin was smaller than Drumpf's 2016 win in the state, and he got reelected simply because he had no serious challenger. His big crusade (eliminating collective bargaining for public employees - basically the Walker agenda) got annihilated by ballot measure 61-38. Oh, and he has the personality of a cardboard box.

Yeah, I'm seeing an obvious loser whose whole career is running in easy elections. And Clinton didn't lose because she was Clinton, that's just a narrative people are using in anticipation of Drumpf not getting reelected.

He beat the Executive of the biggest county in his state. Kasich won over 25% of the black vote(literally 4-5 times what Trump got), a large majority of Hispanics, >55% of labor voters, and outperformed Trump by at least 5-10% in almost every group against someone with a serious appeal to urban Ohio voters. He had a more diverse winning coalition than basically any other Republican in 2014, and that’s because he renounced the Tea Party and successfully placed himself as a different kind of Republican.

He’s not a boilerplate Bush/Romney Republican by any stretch of the imagination.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

I see a solid, but not a landslide win.  I don't see him winning Maine or Minnesota (rural turnout would be less than Trump) or Michigan.  One of the only republicans to make VA and CO truly competitive.

[538Electoral]

Funny how this thread blew up in hindsight.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Kasich (or any generic non-Trump R candidate) has strength in that they were running against a third term within-party candidate. This is something that's quite often left out of analyses of 2016 - Clinton was starting in a small hole because she was fighting against an incredibly fired up R base with an easily complacent D base in her corner.

On the other hand, people saying that Kasich would have a shot in VA and CO in 2016 are delusional. The GOP's brand was already somewhat damaged in VA in 2016 and a Romney-mold Republican candidate would have no appeal there in 2012 - still something like a 2-3 pt Clinton win. In CO, the best route to a surprise Kasich victory (abnormally low D turnout) is forestalled by vote by mail which obviously removes much of the barriers to voting for lazy D voters. Even the (stereo)typical demographic of white suburban Romney-Clinton voters that you would expect to vote for Kasich... don't even really exist in Colorado in wide numbers.

Without VA and CO the strategy depends entirely on Kasich's ability to win in the midwest. I actually think he has a pretty good shot at winning all three of MI, PA and WI for the same reasons he was able to coast in Ohio. I don't think he wins Minnesota for reasons outlined above - unlikely to juice rural turnout although I can see him playing a lot better in MSP than Trump. ME-2 is probably a toss-up and he is competitive in NH.

So, I would guess something like 2016 but with a possibly different New England.

[Agonized-Statism]

Another boring election. Wisconsin is the surprise of the night.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

All too easy.

Kasich wins 321-217

[Plankton5165]

Every state except for DC, 535 to 3.

[morgankingsley]

✓ Governor John R. Kasich (R-OH)/Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC): 302 EV. (49.05%)
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)/Senator Timothy M. Kaine (D-VA): 236 EV. (47.96%)

I would give Kasich MN and I would think this is the most realistic map

[Adam Griffin]

Absolute worst-case scenario for Dems here:



Kasich - 292 - 48.1%
Clinton - 246 - 48.5%