Home » John Kasich, we hardly knew ye

Comments

John Kasich, we hardly knew ye — 17 Comments

  1. It’s all ego with Kasich. He was a wonderboy in congress an early Paul Ryan. Then a Huckabee like turn as cable news personality followed by Governor of Ohio. He clearly had expectations of greater things. But he was no Scott Walker and had a strange turn of religiosity (not necessarily religion) that had him thinking some brand of compassionate conservatism would sell. He may still end up as Trump’s VP but only because his ego has been stroked not due to any long term plan.

  2. The internet is saying he stayed in it only to block Cruz and help out Trump, and now that his job is done he’s suspending his campaign. In exchange for the VP slot or something. I don’t agree. I assume he thought his only chance was in a brokered convention, and with Cruz dropping out that won’t happen.

  3. His task is complete… the sabotage of small government Ted Cruz.

    It doesn’t play any other way.

    If Ted Cruz were still in it to campaign in California — Kasich would still be in it.

    His was the Not-Cruz vote.

    Kasich was constantly raising Ted’s negatives — to a crippling degree — in Indiana.

    Kasich was — and is — plainly not any part of the Not-Trump campaign.

    I’d say that was his play — from the very outset.

    He ran a very low cost campaign — compared to most.

    A flibbertigibbet, he was.

    His numbers in the Northeast destroyed Cruz’s numbers.

  4. Nick…

    Kasich had ZERO chances in a brokered convention — as a slew of delegates were certain to bolt to Ted Cruz on the second ballot.

    All that Ted needed was to block Donald’s first ballot tally.

    Which prospect was sabotaged by Kasich — straight up.

    Assuring Trump a first ballot victory was the obvious consequence to his campaign.

    It couldn’t play any other way.

    He was the third man in a two-way race.

    In NASCAR terms, he was fifty-laps behind in a 200 lap race.

  5. Kasich was Trump’s stalking horse.

    I would’ve thought Trump would keep him around a little longer to make it “look good,” but he has such contempt for his own gullible voters, why should he? It would end up costing somebody real money just for appearances, and there’s no point.

  6. I’m a very sad puppy because I didn’t even have time to add “Kasich” to my spell-checker. Now I never will.

  7. blert blurts “His task is complete… the sabotage of small government Ted Cruz.

    It doesn’t play any other way.”

    Naw, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

  8. Blert – I’m not saying he had a chance. I’m saying he thought he had a chance at a brokered convention. If I may quote from Dumb and Dumber (and if ever there was an election to inspire quotes from that movie, this is it):

    “What are my chances?”
    “Not good.”
    “You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?”
    “I’d say more like one out of a million.”
    “So you’re telling me there’s a chance. YEAH!”

  9. “In NASCAR terms, he was fifty-laps behind in a 200 lap race.”

    Wrong analogy. Think speed-skating. In those multi-competitor events, the pack in the front can wipe each other out and the last-place guy can win. In a two-man race it’s almost impossible.

    Like I said, I’m not thinking that way, but I bet that Kasich was.

  10. Only Kasich knows the why of it. But annoying people don’t need a reason to be annoying, it is after all, what they do… almost as if its their reason for existing. Perhaps its a low grade version of sociopathy. As one gets the distinct impression that some people enjoy annoying other people.

  11. GB,

    As I’ve said before, we aren’t mind-readers and will never know Kasich’s reasons. It doesn’t matter.
    What matters is that it had the same EFFECT as if he did it intentionally.

    Personally, I don’t think you get to that level of politics without being aware of the angles.

  12. I guess if Kasich had dropped out really early–but why would he drop out after finishing second in New Hampshire?–it might have helped Rubio, but once Rubio dropped out, what difference did it make that Kasich stayed in? The establishment, country club Republican types (like me) were never going to vote for Cruz, or at best would have split evenly between Trump and Cruz, so the net effect of making it a two man race is that Trump would have won a little sooner.

  13. “people kept voting for (Kasich) to gum up the works” Seems apt, but Kasich is the “gummer”…

    Regardless of Kasich’s motivations, the effect has been that his continued candidacy held open a “choice” (or wishful thinking) far longer than it should have. Non-Trump voters and funders failed to make a clear decision between the two, then viable, choices.

    It left open the ability of conservative “leaders” to continue to give half hearted support to Cruz.

    This was critical when Trump was still winning by <35% pluralities, and still seen by many as a sure "loser" for the general election (the flipside to the momentum from folks who want to pick the "winner" we witnessed in IN).

    The dynamics would have been very different, if Kasich quit shortly after winning Ohio when it was very clear he had no path.

    I'd like to think that Cruz could have staved off the slide that Trump's NY win precipitated, as he would have more states and delegates in his column.

    But, that would be assuming that people wouldn't succumb to wanting to be on the "winning" side, and forego what they claim is important to them.

    Maybe we'd have seen the same slide in an earlier state, if people were forced to make an earlier decision… Cruz or Trump.

  14. Geoffrey Britain Says:
    May 4th, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Only Kasich knows the why of it. But annoying people don’t need a reason to be annoying, it is after all, what they do… almost as if its their reason for existing. Perhaps its a low grade version of sociopathy. As one gets the distinct impression that some people enjoy annoying other people.

    You get a gold star for that one. Some people do. They not only enjoy it, but imagine it as some kind of right. It establishes their relevance in “the community” and therefore whatever existential importance they imagine they might have. That is why for the type, like liberals, it is always inclusion this or inclusion that. It is how they know they exist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>