It would indeed. But people don't vote for parties; they vote for candidates. And Clinton can win against Trump - she can't win against Kasich.
Potential consequences of Trump's victory
- Thread starter mtf
- Start date
I agree that if Kasich had been the republican candidate he would probably would have won. If he came in now I am not sure he could win since the Trump psycho supporters would, well I don't know what they would do, I just know it would not be rational.
The question is - do they hate Clinton more than they love Donald? From what I have seen, the answer to that is "yes."
By campaigning for the Republican nomination, Trump damaged America's image. By winning the nomination and damaging the Republican party, he's damaged America's image and opened up questions about the stability of its political system.
Now he's only got his own image left, and he's going about damaging that. The man is either unhinged or someone is going to give him a lot of money at some point.
Now he's only got his own image left, and he's going about damaging that. The man is either unhinged or someone is going to give him a lot of money at some point.
Kasich was a candidate, he lost. He didn't even win the primary, not even close. The problem with Kasich is he couldn't even win the Republican vote, much less the Democratic or independent vote.
Well, yeah, people do vote for parties. Probably most people vote for parties. That's evidenced in the electoral map e.g. red state - blue state.
Yes, Clinton can and probably will win against Trump. If Republicans had nominated Kasich he would have had a real chance at winning the general election and beating Hillary Clinton. But they didn't. Kaisch lost the Republican primaries, and he didn't receive his party's nomination.
If the RNC were to attempt to kick The Donald off the ticket The Donald wouldn't go quietly into the night, nor would his supporters. Trump would sue and whomever the DNC put in the Donald's place wouldn't be viewed favorable by the Republican base. It negates the primaries and the votes of millions of Republican voters. That won't go over well with Republican voters even if Trump is an ass.
No matter who Republicans nominate now, they will lose. The damage has been done. Republicans can barely win a national election with a unified Republican party, but with a huge rift in the Republican Party, there is no way in Hell - short of a Democratic meltdown the likes of which we haven't seen - they will win a national election.
Time is short and deadlines are passing. Should the RNC decide to replace Trump today, there is no way they could get this new person on the ballot in all 50 states. And then there is the fact that they don't have any money. Whomever they select would have to create a new national campaign and there is on 96 days between now and the election and with each passing day they have one less day. They need to raise the cash. They need to hire the staff. They need to make the campaign ads and buy the ad space. Kasich isn't well known nationally. There just isn't enough time, money or people to pull this off even if the Republican Party wasn't so divided. It just ain't going to happen. Anything the RNC does now will just make the situation worse.
I expect it will soon be every man for himself on the Republican side. That's really probably the best strategy for Republicans at this point. Every Republican will just do or say whatever they think will get them elected party dogma be damned. We are seeing the Republican Party melt down.
Last edited:
Some Republicans do hate Clinton more than The Donald. But some don't. Republicans have suffered a number of high profile defections within the last few days, Meg Whitman and a number of high profile Republican strategists just within the last few days. And if the RNC had acts to dethrone Trump, Trump's followers will hate the RNC more than they hate Clinton. This isn't a rational thing. it never has been.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
You actually buy that propaganda?
also
Can you say that the people there are better off from our actions?
So Gadaffi didn't give Semtex to the IRA and also take out Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland with it?
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Jeez Dad that was almost 30 years ago.
He did one whole helluva lot of good for his people in the interim.
Can you say that the people there are better off from our actions?
What have you done lately?
(besides harboring old grudges)
LoOTE="Dr_Toad, post: 3396997, member: 279434"]Fascinating. You just might be right. 
[/QUOTE]
Lol...I meant RNC. My fingers weren't channeling my mind.
[/QUOTE]Lol...I meant RNC. My fingers weren't channeling my mind.
I get that you don't give a shit about that. But you are wrong that it was propaganda.
"He did a lot of good for his people in the interim" ? You crack me up.
W&Cheney won re-election - not just election, but re-election - in November of 2004.
That was after the week that W had been filmed making a funny funny joke to reporters about not finding any WMDs in Iraq, by pretending to search for them under his desk in the Oval Office. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq . That was arguably worse - more clueless, shameful, arrogant, and inexplicably awful - than anything Trump has ever done or said.
That was after the week in 2003 that W had arranged a photo op on an aircraft carrier moved offshore at taxpayer's expense, with bands and banners and himself brought on board by military jet instead of his regular helicopter, dismounting from his silly plane in a flight suit outlining his package - the first President to wear a military uniform while on official business, on top of being the first President to have failed in his military career. To be fair, that wasn't a bad week until later, when the White House PR folks decided it would be best to crop the "Mission Accomplished" banner out of the official photos of the day. But it had become a bad week by the campaign in 2004.
That was after the week that the news from Abu Ghraib broke, with pictures (there have never been pictures from the three or four other prisons in Iraq similarly employed).
That was after the week that Fallujah had revolted the first time - one of the few Iraqi cities that had actually welcomed the US forces in the first place.
That was after the reports of missing armor, shortages of bullets, and the like, had hit the news. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gis-lack-armor-radios-bullets-31-10-2004/
Here's a timeline of the news from Iraq in that campaign season: https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/page/0,12438,1151021,00.html
And that's just Iraq War stuff.
Billvon said:
The real gamble there is the American voter. Republicans have become so extreme that people like Kasich can actually try to posture themselves as moderates. In a way, they're right. But that's the thing: the midpoint between zero and one hundred points out is fifty; the midpoint between zero and a thousand is five hundred. Moderate and center in American politics are entirely relative concepts.
Kasich has massive exposure on human rights: women, race relations, even voting rights. He has no claim to small government; he has even undermined the pretense of sending a clean bill, not having too many pages, and not burying riders in necessary legislation, all of which are reliable conservative complaints.
Abortibudget is defining in the policy context the way coming out of their kitchens is defining in a messaging context.
Here's a fun bit of trivia about Mr. Kasich: When it's a black man and his wife, it's called a "terrorist fist bump". When it's a white guy exploiting a staffer's son while he signs away the kid's mother's rights: "Gimme the Rock."
The guy isn't any manner of moderate; John Kasich is a bottom-shelf ideologue. This, however, is the year of the Trump, and as previous Republican forays into this contrast between bonkers and extraordinarily bonkers tell, there are times when that's good enough for the average American voter.
Yep. But pull him in at the last minute, and keep Trump around in some capacity to fire off tweets that enrage and divert the media, and he remains an unknown. All the conservatives breathe a collective sigh of relief and vote for him, and all the undecideds - well, 53% of them think Hillary is a poor choice. Such a move could turn an almost-certain Clinton victory into a tossup.
And Hussein was really good to his people, most of the time. And I hear Bin Laden was a caring and supportive father . . .
Kasich has to be on the ballot in Ohio to win the Presidency. Kasich has until August 10th to get his name on the ballot in Ohio.
If he makes it, that leaves two months or more for the Dems - and Trump - to make folks better acquainted with his record. And maybe file some legal motions to get independent supervision for Republican handling of the election machinery in that fraud-ridden State.
If he makes it, that leaves two months or more for the Dems - and Trump - to make folks better acquainted with his record. And maybe file some legal motions to get independent supervision for Republican handling of the election machinery in that fraud-ridden State.