Tuesday, May 02, 2017

But can he chew gum and walk?

Talk about fake news:

The local paper is working overtime to beclown itself here, not just for the story conceptualization but from the first line:

"During his quixotic 2016 presidential bid, Gov. John Kasich took umbrage whenever anyone wondered if he was shirking his day job by being on the campaign trail for months."

First, politicians politicking is about the most obvious fact of politics, so don't waste our time commenting on it. Of course they're going to run for office, and if you are so concerned about them fulfilling their civic duties, you'd have laid down your pens and taken up arms eons ago for every single one of them.

Second, "quixotic"? Is that a random word generator, some sort of pool you guys have to use a word in your opening sentence?

Readers of this blog are well aware that I am no fan of Kasich, and that indeed there was no way on God's green earth he was ever going to be president, but it wasn't quixotic. Yes, it was obvious that, if he had any brains or principles he should have dropped out of New Hampshire and supported Cruz, because only Cruz could have stopped Trump. But Kasich has neither brains nor principles, as anyone who has the remotest familiarity with him knows, and it was not fantastical that he could win the Republican nomination based on mythical, John McCain style liberalism. It was a strategic choice, and it could have worked, just as Hillary's choices could have worked, and Obama's choices did.

It's also hard to say whether Cruz would have stood a chance against Hillary. LAGuy firmly thinks not, but even he does not bat 1000. Trump, who may or may not turn out to be substantially conservative (I'm guessing not, but we'll see), may have been unique and the only way to defeat Hillary. If you gave me a time machine and the ability to go back and whisper to effect in Kasich's ear, I'd be paralyzed; knowing today's circumstances with Trump, versus a wholly unknown gamble on America and its Manhattan media being able to elect Cruz, it's more likely than not that I'd leave well enough alone.


Anonymous Denver Guy said...

I think it's clear that a populist was going to be able to beat Hillary. I know Jeb Bush wasn't going to do it. If he had quit and released his money to someone else, someone other than Trump might have won. I think Walker could have pulled it off. Not sure about Cruz. My choice, Rubio, might have done it if he read the tea leaves and went populist, but he was not going to be able to adopt the strong anti-illegal immigration plank that Trump did, for the same reason Romney was the wrong person to attack Obamacare.

5:50 AM, May 02, 2017  
Blogger LAGuy said...

I see my name being invoked. You don't have to put words in my mouth, you can just ask me.

We now know Hillary had serious problems with the electorate, but it's hard to say how things would have turned out with another opponent. (It's also hard to say how things would have turned out with a different Democrat, but I doubt Bernie, Biden or Warren would have done any better.)

It may be that only Trump, with his populist--and not particularly conservative--appeal could have beaten her. It certainly helped break down the blue wall, which was probably necessary to take the Electoral College. But Trump, on the other hand, turned off a lot of voters, including regular Republicans, so maybe he did worse (at least popular vote-wise) than other candidates would have.

I guess I do feel Cruz would have lost, mostly because he was, personally, one of the least appealing candidates out there. His solid conservatism played well among the base, but he didn't have much crossover appeal. (His best shot, I suppose, was that his Latino heritage might have helped him reach out, though how much that would have helped Electorally is questionable).

8:44 AM, May 02, 2017  
Blogger New England Guy said...

Trump/Clinton was close (in the swing states) & could have gone either way. We are basically talking about the states that Trump narrowly won to get the Electoral College votes. That being said, if the Trump hadn't completely wiped out the conservatives in the GOP primaries and one of them had emerged as the candidate (of course, if that had happened, it would mean we had a very different electorate), the democratic strategy would have been different too as two establishmentarians banged away at each other and some other set of issues of the moment would have prevailed.

Still could have gone either way - may have been a better chance for a third party if the Trump voters were apparently so alienated in the first place. Of course maybe the disaffected (or enough of them) would have turned to Bernie in the democratic primary.

12:40 PM, May 02, 2017  
Anonymous Lawrence King said...

There were two ways to beat Hillary.

One was the mainstream conservative route: someone like Rubio could have presented himself as the young challenger, conservative but full of fresh ideas, and opposed Hillary as the continuation of failed liberal policies. Could this have won? Of course. Take Romney's states, add Florida, Ohio, and a few others. A mainstream conservative Republican ticket would have picked up all the NeverTrumpers and a lot of moderate suburbanites who didn't vote for Trump, while the rust-belt white working class (and some maverick Latinos and blacks) who voted for Trump in 2016 would have stayed home. Guaranteed? Certainly not. Possible? Given good debate performances, no scandals, and a focus on Hillary's scandals, certainly. I think Rubio was best positioned to do this; Jeb had money but would have been unable to play the "change" card. I don't know if Kasich could have done this -- it depends how many Tea Party and populist folks feel about him the way that ColumbusGuy does.

The other was the populist route that Trump used. Guaranteed? Certainly not; Trump's margin of victory was quite small. Possible? Yes, as Trump proved.

5:42 PM, May 02, 2017  
Blogger ColumbusGuy said...

Sad little coda (for me, anyway): I received an email today from what had been one of the strongest (best organized) Tea Party groups, and it's disbanding for low attendance.

Not quite sure what that means; it might even be good, that these ideas have moved into the mainstream. Still don't like to see it happen.

5:49 PM, May 02, 2017  
Blogger LAGuy said...

Without breaking through the Blue Wall, the Electoral math is tricky. Let's say Rubio wins Romney's states. He's still 63 or 64 votes short of winning.

Let give him Florida and Ohio. Now he's 16 or 17 votes away.

Let's give him New Hampshire (which Trump lost) and Iowa, plus one Maine District. Still 5 or 6 short.

So he'd also have to take Nevada (6), Colorado (9) or New Mexico (5). Nevada is the most likely, but Trump still lost it by two points. (The election, in this scenario, could turn on the Latino vote--as many were expecting it would with Trump.)

So it's certainly possible, but without winning a Rust Belt state like Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, it's not easy. Perhaps they were ready to flip anyway, but it did seem like Trump's message had a special resonance there.

10:48 PM, May 02, 2017  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

But how about Walker? Would he have taken Wisconsin more easily?

5:41 AM, May 03, 2017  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter