If Marco Rubio drops out, I wonder what that will do for John Kasich.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
46 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Haven’t heard that Rubio has gotten any big surge of monies which may mean the money, the endorsements & the attacks are being withheld for Kasich.
Bloomberg out but can’t see him keeping quiet for long so after his comment that his entry would have skewed for Trump question becomes how much will he pull for Clinton and/or build an attack against Trump?
A Bloomberg/Trump war would be an event I’d watch!
The only war I’d like to see between Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump is if it resembles this:
In one word: Diddly.
I’m more worried about what it would do for Cruz.
Agreed. It’s not as though he’s someone we could live with. either. Very bright, knows the law, has an exceptional career in the law, is a religious extremist and perhaps delusional.
According to this snippet from PPP, Ted Cruz is currently the most popular second choice among Ohio Republicans. But the snag is that many of the Cruz second choicers are committed to Trump.
Michigan is the big primary this week but it’s proportional. Looks like Kasich is pulling into second place there, which makes the race interesting.
A fourth place finish by Rubio will ice his campaign. But it might be too late for Kasich, unless he’s counting on winning via brokered convention. Still, if Kasich finishes strongly in Michigan and Rubio drops out, then I think Ohio is a foregone conclusion for him.
I don’t see a non-leading candidate winning the nomination in a brokered convention, for what it’s worth. The Republicans might be delusional, but they’re not that delusional, and they’re not ballsy enough to try it anyways. In fact, the savvier Republicans can turn Trump’s “outsider” status to their advantage and I would not in the least be surprised if they did (all while publicly retiring to their fainting couches).
One last college try to foist an establishment pick on the rebellious teen GOP electorate?
Had this come last Wednesday, it could have pushed Kasich to a win in MI (there seems to be a preference for an establishment guy there) and a win there would have rippled out to at least OH. But ‘lil Rubio can feel a FL win in his bones is unable to comprehend that such a win wouldn’t be strong enough to boost his fortunes elsewhere. But what does he care if he’s first, second, or third as long as he has his literal sugar daddy and he’s young enough that there’s plenty of time for him to have a second and third act.
Not to go off on a tangent, but what is it that makes guys like Rubio get a 2nd and 3rd act? You’re probably right that we’ll have Rubio to kick around again. But I can’t think of when. He could run again, but won’t win in 2020, pretty sure, however badly the Democratic president does with whatever they’ve got over the next few years. But won’t everyone have forgotten him by 2024 and beyond?
“Fair haired boy” or the guy the boss likes for no tangible or objective reason. They’re probably pissed that they squandered him in this race — better if he’d gone for holding his Senate seat — assuming he wants to stay in the game which he may not and opt instead for cashing in. The problem they had this time is that none of those on the bench are close to ready and they needed at least one young one not named Cruz.
Now Rubio isn’t of much value to “them” and they have to go back to square one with him. Governor or Senate seat and he won’t be ready for another POTUS run that would be viable before 2024, but that may not be an open seat for a GOP candidate. If so, they’d have to wait until 2028 when he’d still only be 56 years old. The major difficulty with Rubio is getting some accomplishments on his resume.
He’d have to become a Democrat to, what did you call it, “getting some accomplishments on his resume?” He’s the 2016 version of 2004’s Howard Dean. Done.
So Rubio becomes the RNC chair for the next four years? He’d probably prefer a fat sinecure somewhere. Adelson likes him.
I’m not sure he’ll get a second act if he waits until Florida and takes a thumping. He’s lazy. He sucks at his job (actually I wish other Republicans sucked at their jobs as bad as him; they’d do less damage because they’re never even there). His appeal is limited in an increasingly reactionary and white nationalist party nation-wide. And he’s deep down not Establishment at all: he is far, far right winger extremist. I mean, so is Kasich, but you understand what I mean.
This is Rubio’s moment (or so he thought), or 15 minutes, and he’s blowing it big time.
Ask Mittens how well that works out for a second (or third) chance.
I think if Rubio drops out, any of “his” votes will go to Cruz. I doubt that those votes will go to Kasich.
Rubio is hanging on by his fingernails for 2 reasons: 1) wants a win in FL, and 2) building recognition for 2020. Guess he’s got some sugar daddies who’ll pay for that prize.
Kasich? He wants to win Ohio to prove he’s relevant, but I think it’s more like: stick a fork in him, he’s done!
Rubio, like a bad penny, could show up again (perish the thought). I’m thinking that Kasich needs to find a sugar daddy on K St or similar.
I think The Donald will get more of those Rubio votes than one expects. Rubio represents the suburban, more educated, and middle and upper-middle class evangelicals. I don’t think they are that supportive of Cruz’s dominionism. I agree that for Kasich, that train has left the station.
http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commenta
ry/
fladem’s analysis of KY and ME suggests that the demo you cite did indeed shift to Cruz. Trump’s demo is more lower income working class. Class seems to be larger factor than usual and conservative religion less so.
Certainly here in Ohio, any Republican who was supporting Rubio over Kasich probably has a beef with Kasich, over something like Medicare expansion. I doubt there are a lot of them in any of the other camps who are open to voting for Kasich or they would have been for him in the first place.
Kasich’s path to the nomination
win Michigan
Win Ohio and Illinois
Win Wisconsin (WTA) on April 5
Win PA on 4/26
Win CA, NJ, other states on 6/5
If he does this he gets about 500 delegates, and demonstrates strength in states the GOP needs to win.
Taking out Rubio and making a 3 way race with evidence Trump is taking on water gives Kasich a very real shot.
Kasich should scare the shit out of Democrats.
He would scare me, a lot, if there were any possibility of that kind of run, but there isn’t. Polls even have him narrowly trailing Drumpf even in Ohio.
Prediction: If kasich wins MI he will be ahead by 10 in Ohio in 72 hours.
He’s polling in fourth place in MI with about a quarter of Drumpf’s support.
Mitchell Polling: 3/1
Trump 39, Cruz 14, Kasich 12, Rubio 19
Mitchell Polling: 3/6
Trump 42, Kasich 20, Cruz 19, Rubio 5
Trafalgar, 3/2-3/3
Trump 42, Cruz 20, Kasich 18, Rubio 14
Trafalgar, 3/5-3/6
Trump 41, Cruz 23, Rubio 23, Rubio 8
That isn’t a quarter of Trump, and it is very real movement. Probably not enough to catch Trump, but I would not be surprised to see Kasich easily above 30. Enough to get a bounce into Ohio, where according to PPP he trails by 3.
Everyone will scream at me for this but:
In Iowa in 2004 I learned of a conference call a couple of days out by the Edwards people. At the time public polling (which usually is 48-72 hours behind) suggested a 3 way race between Dean, Gephart and Kerry.
But the Edwards people knew:
Gephart was collapsing
Dean was fading
As a result they believed there were in a 2 way fight with Kerry where both would likely break 30 – something no public poll ever showed. The believed Dean was in the process of imploding both in IA and NH.
SO. We saw in the counties next to Ohio in KY a four way race between Rubio, Kasich, Cruz and Trump. Rubio has essentially cratered (a la Gephart) and Trump appears since the debate last week to have taken on water. If he loses both MI and MS, the media will have a field day.
If Kasich wins MI my guess is he will win OH and may win ILL. Cruz may win MO.
In this scenario there is a shot at a Kasich/Cruz fight – something 72 hours ago no one could have dreamed.
This is all speculation, and if the polling is right in MI Kasich may have real problems. But if feels like there is very real volatility in the GOP race right now.
Not predicting, just suggesting one permutation no one has thought about.
Doubt anyone will scream at you for that. At least I won’t. In ’04 from way out west it could be seen that Dean being hurt by both the weakness of his IA ground game at the negative TV spots. What we couldn’t see was who would benefit.
Considering the recent primary history in MI, wouldn’t rule out Kasich doing well there, but seems to me that “well” isn’t good enough to get the dominoes to fall as you’ve laid out. He needs a win and probably more than a win by a few votes.
Having observed him in the debates, I’m not inclined to view him as a more formidable GOP nominee than the other two. Less likely to lose as badly as Trump or Cruz but also less likely to win than either of them.
“Less likely to lose as badly as Trump or Cruz but also less likely to win than either of them.”
But, it would be a fairer fight against Kasich. I’d be interested in the debates between Hillary and Kasich. Or Sanders and Kasich. On the other hand, the thought of a debate with Hillary and Trump or Cruz is kind of sickening.
Why a fairer fight?
Here’s a question: Which of the following presidential debates would have the highest and lowest viewership (for the first debate):
Clinton vs. Trump
Clinton vs. Cruz
Clinton vs. Kasich
Sanders vs. Trump
Sanders vs. Cruz
Sanders vs. Kasich
Highest viewership: Clinton vs. Trump These two candidates have received the lion’s share of media attention.
Lowest viewership: Sanders vs. Kasich These two have received the least attention and Kasich lays low in the debates.
For me, I would enjoy a Sanders vs. Kasich debate the most.
Sanders vs. Kasich would be the most adult debate among the possibilities.
My guess is that Clinton vs. Kasich would be the lowest rated one.
I’ll go with Clinton vs. Trump as the highest rated first debate. Would also expect the ratings of that match-up to decline for the subsequent two debates. Whereas the ratings would more likely increase for a third debate if Cruz were the nominee.
I have reconsidered and agree with you about the low viewership of Clinton vs. Kasich. Hillary lectures and Kasich is not very animated.
The personal characteristics of the candidate may be irrelevant to the ratings except when one of them is freaky. Which would be a reason why a Trump in a debate would generate higher ratings.
HRC v. Kasich would generate the lowest level of viewers because it would be closest to Gore v. Bush. General electorate resignation and more indifferent to the outcome than the other possible combinations.
I’d guess highest viewership would be Sanders vs Kasich.
Fairer fight because Kasich might possibly be competitive.
Of course, this is one of those questions for which there will never be an answer. But there is something very curious about the viewership ratings of presidential debates in the past four elections. Will say more when I update my diary on this issue. And if I’m correct, no way would Sanders vs Kasich be the highest rated among these choices.
The problem with that scenario is the front end. Only one poll is showing the sort of movement it would take for Kasich to win OH: Trump would have to shed at least 15% of his support and combined Cruz/Rubio would have to shed 50% and all of leavings would have to go to Kasich en masse.
PPP has him down 3 in Ohio today. So a strong second means he leads in Ohio?
Better than even odds (strong second MI > OH win), yes. But it doesn’t take him anywhere because he was very far down in the pack in most of the other primaries and caucuses. His only strong second was VT. MA and NH – weak second and ME weak third. MN fifth.
With an win in OH, Kasich stays in just in case the others implode.
He loses to Sanders. Everyone besides Trump beats Clinton.
Democrats should consider the low turnout in primaries where Hillary wins. Not a good signal for November.
Bob, there really isn’t much evidence that supports the conclusion that low primary turnout for either party is a precursor to low general election turnout. In 2012 the DEM primary turnout was negligible and not predictive of the general election.
DEM are also under the impression that high turnout means they win in general elections. In 2004 there were over 20 million voters than there had been in 2000. Of that 20 million, GWB got 12 million.
Turnout isn’t actually low for DEMs. There’s drop-off/drop-out from ’08 in most states, but there were unique factors in the primary that increased turnout and generally those factors weren’t healthy ones. What should be of more concern to Democrats is that those unhealthy factors could result in a ’16 general election backlash.
So now there’s talk that Romney has filed paperwork to run in ’16…?
And one has to enjoy the article in Forbes about Trump Towers being funded by rich Chinese looking for green cards.
Trump will say it’s creating jobs for the American people. The Chinese are investing in many real estate projects in the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/business/international/chinese-cash-floods-us-real-estate-market.h
tml?_r=0
True. But in Trump’s case he is exploiting a way to get finance that will be problematic to his arguments against the Chinese when one sees the rich Chinese don’t get a financial return on their money but do get a green card. Pretty much goes against what his supporters think he stands for.
It seems Bloomberg has decided it is not necessary for him to save us.
The thing is, Kasich hasn’t had any money to speak of, compared to Cruz and Rubio and even Carson, and now Rubio’s and Bush’s donors have nowhere else to go; also, there’s tons of superpac money floating around looking for stuff to do to defeat Trump.
Kasich always should always have been the “establishment” candidate, obviously. Bush seemed to have all the money, and Rubio seduced them with the silly fantasy that a Cuban could get the Latino vote away from the Democrats (Mexicans and Dominicans regard Cubans as of a privileged race because Cubans are basically free of immigration law thanks to the Cold War).
Now he’s all the establishment has and he’s going to have much or most of that money to himself. I think he’s going to have a serious-looking boom, and if any candidate will beat Trump it will be him. But at this point it doesn’t seem too likely.
GOP PTB convinced themselves that Marco could be the Latino Barack. They failed to note that Rubio is a slacker and not too bright and therefore, required Karen Hughes and Karl Rove skill level type intense management for three years before entering the presidential race.
.anyway. I still think he’s not unbearably bad. He won’t do anything irrevocably stupid. Looks like Rubio will be gone in a week or two. That gives all spring and early summer for Cruz and Trump to kill each other off while Kasich continues quietly to rise to be the only one left standing.
Since moving into my (primarily jewish) neighborhood, I’ve been receiving the Forward in my mailbox. I don’t know how long it will last (probably just a free trial) but the articles are pretty good. Most people remember their interview with Obama a few months back. They had an article about the neoconservatives and their flight from Trump in the latest edition, but it’s not online yet. It’s nothing too surprising but there are some takes that I haven’t heard from before.
In any event, I’ll post the link when they put it online.
Since my home state of Illinois was mentioned in some of the comments, here is a link that discusses the current GOP primary race. It looks like Trump will win the Land of Lincoln. (Wish Boo provided frown emojis.) The Illinois Republican leadership is fractured; some supporting Rubio; others Kasich. I’m not sure Cruz will do that well in Illinois, but who knows? Voters may not be listening to the establishment, since Republican governor Rauner is so unpopular. I’ve seen a few Trump signs; no one else merits one. Early voting has been going since Feb. 29 and the Primary is March 15.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/illinois/2016/03/8592772/illinois-rubio-kasich-rift-gop-battle
s-stop-trump#disqus_thread