Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    12 Nov '15 23:52
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Trouble is he'd have to win 49 other States or at least compete in them.
    Assuming the election is reasonably close, most States are virtually assured to go one way or the other: the Democrats are going to win New York, the Republicans Texas, etc. etc. etc. The election will come down to a small number of swing States - Ohio is a prominent one as is Virginia, Florida and a handful of others. The ability of a Republican to win independents and cut into traditional Democratic areas of strengths in those States will be crucial and Kasich has a track record of doing so that no other Republican candidate can match (Christie to a lesser degree but he's a fringe candidate at this point whereas Kasich is still polling respectably in New Hampshire).

    Thus, Democrats should be happy if Kasich is really finished as a contender.
  2. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    13 Nov '15 01:241 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Assuming the election is reasonably close, most States are virtually assured to go one way or the other: the Democrats are going to win New York, the Republicans Texas, etc. etc. etc. The election will come down to a small number of swing States - Ohio is a prominent one as is Virginia, Florida and a handful of others. The ability of a Republican to win ...[text shortened]... New Hampshire).

    Thus, Democrats should be happy if Kasich is really finished as a contender.
    In Ohio, not a terribly partisan State, based on my experience living there, Kasich can do well in a State wide election. As much as many other States seem predestined, they all can go the other way if a candidate is just to unattractive to the party faithful.

    That is how Reagan managed to win 49 of 50 States, and Obama won an electoral landslide. People in traditionally strong States switched or just stayed home.

    Michigan is in play, although going to Democrat Presidential candidates lately, the State legislature, and Governor are Republicans. Wisconsin is heavily Democratic in the urban areas, but very Republican outstate.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    13 Nov '15 01:331 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    In Ohio, not a terribly partisan State, based on my experience living there, Kasich can do well in a State wide election. As much as many other States seem predestined, they all can go the other way if a candidate is just to unattractive to the party faithful.

    That is how Reagan managed to win 49 of 50 States, and Obama won an electoral landslide. Peop ...[text shortened]... Republicans. Wisconsin is heavily Democratic in the urban areas, but very Republican outstate.
    Please re-read my first phrase.

    The odds of any Republican winning a landslide in 2016 are remote. IF the Republican strategy is really we can nominate anyone and still win easily they are almost certainly deluding themselves.
  4. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    13 Nov '15 01:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Please re-read my first phrase.

    The odds of any Republican winning a landslide in 2016 are remote. IF the Republican strategy is really we can nominate anyone and still win easily they are almost certainly deluding themselves.
    You mean "Assuming a close race".

    Better find another candidate besides Hillary. She has huge negatives among her party faithful.

    The only danger I see for Republicans is nominating someone who will have similar or greater negative among their faithful. A great many elections are determined by those who stay home.
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    13 Nov '15 02:011 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You mean "Assuming a close race".

    Better find another candidate besides Hillary. She has huge negatives among her party faithful.

    The only danger I see for Republicans is nominating someone who will have similar or greater negative among their faithful. A great many elections are determined by those who stay home.
    You are, as usual, misinformed. http://www.gallup.com/poll/181988/hillary-clinton-clear-leader-favorability-among-democrats.aspx Obama at this point in 2011 had similar ratings.http://www.gallup.com/poll/164612/democrats-approval-obama-slipping.aspx

    Turnout is always higher in Presidential elections than in others particularly among traditional Democratic constituencies. That is why a Kasich would be a bigger problem for a Hillary than a Cruz would be.
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    13 Nov '15 02:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You are, as usual, misinformed. http://www.gallup.com/poll/181988/hillary-clinton-clear-leader-favorability-among-democrats.aspx

    Turnout is always higher in Presidential elections than in others particularly among traditional Democratic constituencies. That is why a Kasich would be a bigger problem for a Hillary than a Cruz would be.
    Both Republicans and Democrats tend to stay home if they aren't enthused or are turned off by their party candidate.

    If the D party thinks they can send anyone as candidate (read anyone equals Clinton) they are making a mistake. When you are leading a field of one, it isn't saying much.

    On the GOP side, there is a serious contest for the nomination, and the problem is not how to wow crossover voters, but how to keep their own voters enthused. The last two Presidential cycles ought to have showed the Republican establishment that they can't just send the next guy in line and expect folks to vote for him.

    If either party is over confident, I have to say it is the Dems, with no real opposition to Mrs. Clinton. I personally know quite a few normally faithful Democrat voters, who tell me their decision if Hillary is candidate will be whether to go to the dark side or to stay home. Either is fine with me.
  7. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    13 Nov '15 02:15
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You are, as usual, misinformed. http://www.gallup.com/poll/181988/hillary-clinton-clear-leader-favorability-among-democrats.aspx Obama at this point in 2011 had similar ratings.http://www.gallup.com/poll/164612/democrats-approval-obama-slipping.aspx

    Turnout is always higher in Presidential elections than in others particularly among traditional Democr ...[text shortened]... nstituencies. That is why a Kasich would be a bigger problem for a Hillary than a Cruz would be.
    Kasich would be a bigger problem for a Hillary than a Cruz would be.

    They would each present different problems. Cruz would secure the base better, and Kasich might lure more centrists. IMHO the base is more important, and I'd also add that the opinion of known Democrat faithfuls, such as you doesn't count for much when evaluating R candidates.
  8. Standard memberSleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    Dustbin of history
    Joined
    13 Apr '07
    Moves
    12727
    13 Nov '15 02:29
    Originally posted by normbenign
    [b]Kasich would be a bigger problem for a Hillary than a Cruz would be.

    They would each present different problems. Cruz would secure the base better, and Kasich might lure more centrists. IMHO the base is more important, and I'd also add that the opinion of known Democrat faithfuls, such as you doesn't count for much when evaluating R candidates.[/b]
    I'd hardly call no1 a Democrat faithful. And I think he's right. Cruz, Trump or Carson are all going to be a long shot against Clinton.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    13 Nov '15 05:21
    Originally posted by normbenign
    [b]Kasich would be a bigger problem for a Hillary than a Cruz would be.

    They would each present different problems. Cruz would secure the base better, and Kasich might lure more centrists. IMHO the base is more important, and I'd also add that the opinion of known Democrat faithfuls, such as you doesn't count for much when evaluating R candidates.[/b]
    This "Democratic faithful" hasn't voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1992 nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton in her Senate runs.

    The bases roughly cancel each other out. If a Presidential candidate wants to win they have to take the Independents and raid the other party a bit. The candidates you seem to favor have little chance of doing so and assuming the GOP base will come out in droves while the Dems sit out a Presidential election is a fantasy not a strategy.
  10. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Nov '15 05:30
    Whether Kasich or Rubio would be a better general election candidate is an interesting question. Kasich is more moderate and has a strong track record in a purple state. Moderates always logically have an advantage in the general, where moderates and cross-overs are key.

    On the other hand, the base might stay home to some extent for Kasich. That might not mean much in purple states where the people are moderate, like Ohio, but it could be important in swing states where the people are very polarized but fairly even, making turnout key. These states include Virginia and North Carolina.

    Also, Rubio is more charasmatic and charisma can be as important as policy in a Presidential election.

    While Kasich may do better than Rubio in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Rubio is likely to be stronger in Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and North Carolina.

    While I agree that a GOP landslide in 2016 is unlikely, if it happens it will be because a Ronald Reagan type gets hot and gets the country excited about him; kind of like Obama did in 2008. that person is not John Kasich. It is possible that the person could be Rubio, who does seem to have a lot of "Obama" in him.

    It's arguable, but I still think the Republicans are slightly better off with Rubio over Kasich. I think either are about even money against Hillary. I think any other GOP nominee would be an underdog.
  11. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    13 Nov '15 05:341 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Both Republicans and Democrats tend to stay home if they aren't enthused or are turned off by their party candidate.

    If the D party thinks they can send anyone as candidate (read anyone equals Clinton) they are making a mistake. When you are leading a field of one, it isn't saying much.

    On the GOP side, there is a serious contest for the nominatio ...[text shortened]... ry is candidate will be whether to go to the dark side or to stay home. Either is fine with me.
    === On the GOP side, there is a serious contest for the nomination, and the problem is not how to wow crossover voters, but how to keep their own voters enthused. The last two Presidential cycles ought to have showed the Republican establishment that they can't just send the next guy in line and expect folks to vote for him. ===

    The GOP base is maybe 25% of the electorate. They could ALL turn out for Huckabee or some other far right yo-yo and would still lose in a landslide.

    The last 2 election cycles showed that even nominating a good candidate wasn't enough against a strong Democratic candidate in a country that more and more disagrees with the Tea Party driven platform. That is a scary thing for a guy like Rubio, but Hillary may be a weak enough personality and have enough baggage to give him a real shot.
  12. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35902
    15 Nov '15 15:05
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Unless you vote for Trump. 😏
    Trump will never see the nomination, even if he is double-digits ahead in the polls the week before the convention.
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    16 Nov '15 02:24
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Assuming the election is reasonably close, most States are virtually assured to go one way or the other: the Democrats are going to win New York, the Republicans Texas, etc. etc. etc. The election will come down to a small number of swing States - Ohio is a prominent one as is Virginia, Florida and a handful of others. The ability of a Republican to win ...[text shortened]... New Hampshire).

    Thus, Democrats should be happy if Kasich is really finished as a contender.
    They might as well do their happy dance, because Kasich is as good as done, because of his Democrat talk at a Republican Debate. 😏
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    16 Nov '15 02:33
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Please re-read my first phrase.

    The odds of any Republican winning a landslide in 2016 are remote. IF the Republican strategy is really we can nominate anyone and still win easily they are almost certainly deluding themselves.
    Those like me don't care about the strategy of the Republican establisment this year, we are going to vote for someone we believe will fight for the middle class Republicans regardless of their ability to beat the Democrats. We are fed up with voting for lying Republicans that are not a dime bit of difference from the lying Democrats.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13066
    16 Nov '15 02:422 edits
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Trump will never see the nomination, even if he is double-digits ahead in the polls the week before the convention.
    I have made up my mind that I am going to vote for Donald Trump anyway. I prefer to have the beautiful Melanai Trump as First Lady in the White House over a lying Democrat witch as the first Madam President. If Trump does not make it, I will vote for anyone over Hillary Clinton unless the vote is to put her in prison. 😏
Back to Top