Kasich played a moderate on TV during the debate. He is polling fairly well in NH and an upset there could propel him to a real shot, albeit a longshot one.
Sanders has no real shot, even if he wins in NH, but let’s pretend.
Based on current impressions how would you vote if it was those two in a general election?
Sanders, easily. Kasich may be one of the “good” Republicans, but that’s only relatively speaking. From what I’ve heard his policies are still terrible, and he’d still be far more likely to lead us into another stupid war and get thousands more Americans killed for nothing.
I’d vote Sanders, but Kasich would clearly win.
Kasich is a moderate, as Republicans go these days. He’s no Rockefeller Republican, but those are museum pieces now. Regardless, he’s not moderate enough for my vote.
Sanders, but 4 years of a progressive would be good for the country right now I think.
I agree that Kasich would win in a walk.
I am not much enamored of Sanders and would not support him in a primary against pretty much any real Democrat…but I’d certainly vote for him against any of the Republican candidates currently in the race.
Kasich seemed to be vying for Trump’s VP spot in the debate but I heard he started in on Trump like the rest of them. That was his last chance to participate in this election.
Sanders of course, and in general I’d obviously prefer any Democratic nominee over any Republican one (well except Chafee in which case I’d probably write in Brian Schweitzer in the ballot).
Kasich, like Jon Huntsman, in the previous election cycle is a very conservative Republican who poses as a moderate because of rhetoric and personality. In virtually all substantial aspects, I’d vastly prefer Trump over Kasich.
no socialist communism ever. No Sanders.
Actually, it’s “no Republican ever again.” I issued a decree to that effect, in fact; and I EXPECT compliance.
Sanders is a left-wing social democrat not a commie or even a socialist.
The sad thing is that US politics is currently in a place where a contest between a moderate conservative and a true progressive is pure fantasy and could never happen, any more than social policies like Social Security or Medicare could actually be enacted any more.
Republican policies of a mere generation ago would now be declared “communist”. US politics is currently in a place where something like Scott Walker might conceivably win the nomination, and a venom-spewing misogynist with the intelligence of a turnip and a dead weasel on his head is actually leading in the polls. It’s enough to make you want to live at least in Australia, but preferably Mars.
I’d love to live in a world where that was a plausible match-up. In fact, I’d prefer that world to the much more plausible one where the match-up was Trump vs. Sanders, even though Sanders would be a shoo-in to win the general versus Trump, and Kasich would likely beat Sanders. Despite being rather liberal, I also view having at least two sane, viable parties as essential to a functioning democracy. We liberals have our excesses, too, we just can’t tell where they are, which is why we need sane opponents to point them out for us.
Sanders all the way, I’m a Democrat. He is a breath of fresh air, Kasich is not.
FWIW I’d take better odds on it being Kasich than it being Trump. And the prediction market agrees. Kasich is right now a 20 cent bet, tied for 3rd with Walker to Trump’s 17; Bush for comparison is running 43. Sanders is a 26 cent bet though which seems silly of the market to give him that good.
If you want “two sane, viable parties” its essentially to destroy the current Republican party and either create wholly new parties or (as is more plausible) a radically transformed Republican Party which in turn involves setting forth a candidate not of either the Establishment or the Tea Party-namely Donald Trump. Although I don’t necessarily see “two sane, viable parties” as necessary for a “functioning democracy”, much less the goal of a partisan-the ideal goal of a liberal (in the broad sense of supporting a liberal government) partisan should be to become the dominant party by virtue of creating a continuous majority-the Swedish Social Democrats for example essentially did so from the 1930s to the 1970s.
The way you “destroy” the opposite party is to persuade the majority that your ideas a right, thus forcing the other party to come more towards your way of thinking. Instead, the Democrats are playing the demographics game, which means conceding a large portion of the country to Republicans, which means Republicans can usually count on controlling Congress. Republicans can lose the Presidency until 2060, as long as they control Congress during the bulk of that time, why change? So Democrats need to take a cue from Howard Dean and find a way to win in red states. But not the way Dean did it, by recruiting centrists. It has to be done by turning people. Ronald Reagan was the last President to really change the makeup of the coalitions. That’s why there’s the term “Reagan Democrats”, a group that Republicans can still count on when there is wide dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party and they run the right candidates. Democrats have not yet figured out, or really tried, to emulate that. Obama had designs on that, but never really figured out what made Reagan succeed. Joe Biden could actually succeed where Obama failed. Biden is a fairly liberal guy who actually knows how to talk to Republicans.
Of the 5 declared Democrats, plus 1 for Biden who’s still polling third, Sanders runs neck and neck with Chaffee for my least preferred. Kasich on the other hand has become the clear leader for my vote on my side of aisle. Guess who I picked? 
I agree that’s part of it; however that becomes easier when a large part of the other party is already disillusioned and sometimes the job is just making voters reevaluate their priorities or to quote Orwell makes one’s anger and hatred be “switched from one subject to another like the flame of a blowlamp”.
I absolutely agree with this-the Democrats won’t be able to do much soon with its current coalition of minorities and urban/suburban white professionals. The prominence of Donald Trump offers a golden opportunity in regards to this since his electorate is not the “inner circle” of the Tea Party but rather marginal and disaffected voters who vaguely identify with the Tea Party due to resentment over cultural issues and immigration but violently disagree with the Tea Party’s ideological goals in regards to dismantling the New Deal/Great Society entitlement system (at least when directed at them rather than “those people”). The solution here is to encourage a death struggle between the GOP and Trump to the bitter end-to the general election with Trump running third-party if need be and use the moment of political mobilization to turn Trump’s electorate towards the Democratic Party. In short, fight on the line that the real “cuckservatives” are the “Kochservatives”-not those who say Beltway-friendly things about immigration but those dedicated to dismantling Social Security and Medicare.
Howard Dean probably was one of the last people on Earth who could do it, considering he is (far more than the economically populist Sanders) a “liberaltarian” that might appeal to students but not particularly palatable to the sort of voters currently supporting Trump.
He and Nixon (who started the process) ran on resentment over Vietnam, crime, welfare, and social permissiveness not by converting Reagan Democrats to economic conservatism.
The Obama majority can win Presidential elections but not Congressional ones due to the nature of demographics.
Reagan Democrats were also fed up with ever increasing taxes. Back then inflation was high and tax brackets weren’t indexed, so inflation enabled Democrats to think they could get away with raising everyone’s taxes without having to pass new legislation. Instead, it led to a nationwide tax revolt.
Democrats still can’t raise taxes in any way that would actually raise revenue, so they are stunted as a party no matter how many elections they win until they can figure out how to persuade people to pay more taxes. It doesn’t help that so much of the democrats’ power base is now in the richest states. So you had the spectacle of Nancy Pelosi in 2012, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts coming, pushing for the tax cuts to be preserved all the way up to $400,000/yr.