Cruz was also still in that race, and got 36%. At least some portion of his voters would have also preferred Kasich over Trump, so his true support is somewhere above 7.5%. His name recognition was also fairly low at the time, and he’s working to increase it. And it’s been a long time since we’ve had a Presidential election so lopsided that a 7.5% third candidate wouldn’t swing it.

Although, to be fair, at least some of Kasich’s support in that primary was probably from crossover Democrats who wanted the sanest Republican they could get.

Kasich only vetoed that particular bill because even its supporters agreed that it would fail a court challenge. Ohio Right to Life asked Kasich to veto it, so they could work on something else, which they think will be more successful in ultimately overturning Roe vs Wade.

Lol - Kasich dropped his support for fracking in the state parks only becausehis office was caught coordinating propaganda efforts to discredit environmental groups opposed to the fracking. He reversed course on the very day that Democrats started calling for an investigation into propaganda effort. (Of course, the fact that 70% of the state residents hate the idea of fracking in our parks might also have something to do with Kasich’s willing to back off.)

Of course, Kasich, who said that fracking is the key to energy independence at last year’s RNC debates, doesn’t have to publicly support fracking in the parks, anymore. The Republican controlled Ohio state legislature is attempting to do an end run and appoint the people to move forward with the plan without Kasich’s involvement.

Kasich is against mandatory minimum for non-violent drug crimes, on the reasonable grounds that most drug offenders will be out again in a year and that year of prison time is costing a lot of money with nothing to show for it. He’s still opposed to legalizing marijuana. He hedged a lot last year about whether he’d allow states that legalized to keep their status. He’s also not opposed to mandatory minimums in other cases.

It’s true that he’s saner than Pence on this issue - but he’s still flunking on the major point which is to decriminalize marijuana all together.

Additionally Indiana is a state where his campaign actively encouraged his supporters to vote for Cruz. It was part of the deal to try to stop Trump from securing a majority of first ballot delegates. Some portion of Cruz voters likely preferred Kasich.

I have no opinion on the political ramifications of this but without doubt they missed their calling and should have been mathematicians,

Just imagine, “The Kasich-Hickenlooper conjecture” that’s some top quality eponymous mathematical headlining right there.

These are fairly marginal issues. An iota less right-wingery does not a moderate make.

Kasich is a moderate in temperament. Ideologically he’s pretty right-wing. But he’ll make deals, he’ll compromise, which in effect makes him a moderate as long as he doesn’t have a GOP Congress. And even then he’ll be more moderate than they are.

Well, he has been for about two years. Maybe it will last.

Kasich seems to be a (comparatively) moderate Republican who may appeal to Dems more that his own partymates. Sorta the new John Anderson. With Trump being so conservative (operationally, if not philosophically) and the Dems inching toward Sanders/Warren territory maybe you can get a candidate who can carve 34+% out of the middle. Long odds, though, long odds.

I think Hunstman would be a better bet than Kasich for a middle-ground Republican. I have no idea if he would be interested, but he definitely comes off as way too intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonable to ever make on the national conservative stage.

I think that’s closer than some other statements. But I’d say more exactly Kasich is mainly a conservative. What Trump OTOH represents ideologically is that a lot of the right side of the spectrum is not really conservative. Some people supporting Trump in the primaries were conservatives, many more who voted for him in the general were, when the realistic alternative was Clinton. But Trump’s core is populist/nationalists who are increasingly differentiated from conservatives, either strong conservatives (Paul Ryan say) or more milquetoastish ones (Kasich say).

IOW there’s an ideological difference in degree along a mainly one dimensional line between Ryan and Kasich. They are two basically moderate men by temperament, but Ryan is more conservative than Kasich. The difference between them and Trump is not that Trump is more conservative than they, it’s along another axis, and not just because Trump is immoderate by temperament. Although temperament and ideological views interact to some degree of course.

And to the extent one counter argues that Trump has no ideology, it would still apply to a lot of opinion makers solidly for Trump (talk radio and web pundits who are), as opposed to people who decided the negatives of Trump weren’t quite as big as those of Clinton. I don’t give examples of other elected officials because that’s the unusual thing. There are still few solidly populist/nationalist, disdainful of traditional Reaganite conservatism, major elected officials.

However, a lot of the GOP base is that way, populist/nationalist and increasingly disdainful of traditional Reaganite conservatism. But while the average voter isn’t a genius, they tend to know when they are wasting their vote. People along the conventional conservative spectrum, Ryan-like to Kasich-like, will realize again I think that voting for a ‘moderate’ without the GOP’s nomination is throwing away your vote and potentially helping the Democrats. IOW imagining lots more people on the right of center line flocking to K-H (let alone H-K) than people on the left of center line, or a whole lot of both, is probably no more realistic than the delusion that Gary Johnson would siphon lots more votes from Trump than Clinton. It turned out perhaps the other way around and he mainly fizzled, as people realized there really is a binary choice, save a complete political upheaval.

Note, Trump could easily lose in 2020 based on his performance/behavior, or perhaps not make it that far. All kinds of stuff could happen. But if some ‘middle of the road’ choice seems such a lay up to clearing the path for the Democrats, it’s probably not.

The point I was responding to was not: Kasich is not moderate. It was: Kasich is no different than Pence. I demonstrated several areas in which he was. More can be related if need be. Kasich is clearly not the equivalent of Pence. If you want to make that assertion, you need to demonstrate that it is true.

Unless, of course, you are the sort of person who argues that, just because you are far to the side of both choices, they are equally bad, being so far from you.

Agreed. Part of what makes someone moderate is the willingness to compromise.

He turned down the federal matching money to replace the I-75/i-71 bridge (which really needs replaced, both for functionality and safety. It’s falling apart, with chunks falling off all the time, and it is not functionally adequate, leaving the interstate to back up over 20 miles some mornings) over the Ohio River, and turned down grants for high speed rail.

Personally, I railed against him, I certainly did not vote for him, and I feel that he has made a number of decisions that I feel are wrong for the state.

That said, he’s 10[sup]25[/sup]% better than trump.

I guess my point is that I feel that what you demonstrated was that Kasich is different in relatively minor areas. He definitely has a different temperament, but in terms of policy, I don’t see much space between the two. They’re not 100% identical, but no two governors are.

Please. Abortion rights is not a “minor area”. Yeah, Kasich is anti-abortion. But he’s not right-wing-do-anything-possible-to-end-abortion anti-abortion.

Environmentalism is not a “minor area”. Yeah, he’s not committed to an environmentalist program, but he’s not right-wing-don’t-let-environmental-concerns-ever-stop-business-from-doing-what-they-want like Pence is.

As I pointed out: he’s only the equivalent of Pence if you are so far to the “left” of them both that you cannot discern the difference, or don’t care.

Put it this way: In behavorial psychology, there’s a concept called “scaffolding”, in training an animal (including a human animal) to do something. The idea is that, even if the full task is too complicated to train all at once, you can train behaviors that approach that task. For instance, if you wanted to train a dog to turn on an ordinary light switch, you’d start by giving him some command and rewarding him whenever he responded by moving to the corner of the room next to the light switch. When he’s got that down, then you start rewarding him whenever he goes over to that corner and jumps. Then, once he’s doing that reliably, you start rewarding him whenever his jump touches the switch plate, and then you reward him for actually flipping the switch.

Well, the modern crop of Republicans is too crazy to try to train them for good governance directly. So you have to reward whichever Republicans are closest to displaying good governance, as a first step. Kasich is about as close to that as we can get.

It’s not going to happen: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kasich-on-a-2020-run-with-dem-hickenlooper-the-answer-is-no/ar-AAqNlTj?li=BBnb7Kz

I’m not saying abortion rights in general is a minor area, I’m saying that what you brought up in regards to abortions rights is a minor area. I don’t believe that you have articulated an actual policy difference with regards to abortion, but rather a difference in tactics/image. The law that Kasich vetoed was not a serious attempt to enact anything, it was a purely symbolic measure, and he knew that. So yes, that is a “minor area”.

I’m not saying environmentalism in general is a minor area, I’m saying what you brought up in regards to environmentalism is a minor area. The environmental policies you mentioned may be a real difference. I don’t actually know that Pence disagrees, but I’m willing to assume that he does. However, it’s a minuscule issue in the grand scheme of environmental policy. It doesn’t challenge my existing impression that the two of them are 99% aligned. So yes, that is a “minor area”.

Abortion and climate change are actually minor areas when discussing the Presidency. Abortion because the courts and the states have the final say on that, and climate change because ain’t nothin’ significant gonna happen on climate change anywhere in the world, much less the US, anytime soon.

The issue that matters most is respect for civil liberties, and lack of same has been a problem in both parties’ administrations. All of the rest is about character and judgment. You can’t predict foreign policy by ideology, or management skills.

I sometimes get the feeling Kasich realizes that he and his 1994 Republican freshmen class have created a monster and is looking for a way to shut down this Frankenstein but doesn’t know how.

Kasich and others like him have tried the ‘stay classy’ and ‘stay above the fray’ approach, but I’ve got some news for him: that is not going to work. They’re going to have to confront those demons in very honest terms and it’s going to require a full-on embrace of responsibility on their part, and a 100% commitment to distance themselves from it. There is no saving this Republican party. It is as toxic as a nuclear waste dump. And there is no trying to make it a moderate party again. The brown shirts have taken over the conservative party, and they’re not going to let go. They will have to destroy their party and start over with something else.