Kasich: I don't see a path to beat Trump right now

[Right_in_Virginia]

That's not what I hope.  But here's what I fear - what a Dem President and Dem Senate will do to the nation and its Constitution.

Then you should seriously consider standing down with the Bill Kristol   

The Trump/Pence ticket is rolling for 2020; weaken it at your peril @Jazzhead  (Assuming a democrat run government truly is your fear and not your goal)

[Bigun]

It's not my crystal ball, @Right_in_Virginia    It is the crystal ball offered by poll

after poll

after poll

after poll

after poll

after poll.

It doesn't matter the methodology of the poll or the purported agenda of the pollster -  they all convey the message that Trump is likely to lose because he cannot or will not expand his appeal beyond his base.

Look to history -  incumbent Presidents presiding over healthy economies aren't losing in poll after poll after poll.    Incumbant Presidents whose nation is at peace aren't losing in poll after poll after poll.    Trump's brand of leadership is turning off even many of those who voted for him last time.   Back then he had one big arrow in his quiver - he wasn't Hillary.   Next year,  whoever the Dem nominee is will have the same arrow in her quiver - she's not Trump.   

It is political malpractice to ignore the obvious.     It is political idiocy to respond to evidence by trashing the messenger.    If folks want to stick their heads on the sand like myopic ostriches,  so be it.  All I can do is point out that the collective weight of all these polls, with nary an outlier,  is damning.   

We need an alternative,  and the sooner one emerges, the better.

Polls!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

  Shock poll - every leading Dem contender beats Trump by at least nine percentage points

The GOP is committing political malpractice by failing to field a credible challenger to the President's re-nomination.

It's not the responsibility of "the GOP" to field a credible challenger.  It's the responsibility of a challenger to step forward and make themselves credible...if that is possible.

Sometimes, you have to pick the best of a bad set of options.  At this point, there are apparently only two:

1)  A GOP challenger decides to attack Trump hard, fight for the nomination, and risk splitting the party even if successful, or fatally wound Trump if unsuccessful, or

2) Rally behind Trump and take our best shot at winning with him.

Whatever the odds are on 2), I can't help but think they're still much better than 1).  Democrats in the abstract naturally are going to poll better right now because so many voters don't know much about the challengers, including their negatives.  But once a specific challenger emerges (my money is on Warren), and their individual negatives become more apparent to voters...the polls may read differently than they do now.

I still believe overall that Trump is probably going to lose, but he's got a puncher's chance.  I don't think 1) has even that.  I also believe that Republicans attacking Trump accomplishes nothing other than reducing that puncher's chance.

[Jazzhead]

It's not the responsibility of "the GOP" to field a credible challenger.  It's the responsibility of a challenger to step forward and make themselves credible...if that is possible.

Sometimes, you have to pick the best of a bad set of options.  At this point, there are apparently only two:

1)  A GOP challenger decides to attack Trump hard, fight for the nomination, and risk splitting the party even if successful, or fatally wound Trump if unsuccessful, or

2) Rally behind Trump and take our best shot at winning with him.

Whatever the odds are on 2), I can't help but think they're still much better than 1).  Democrats in the abstract naturally are going to poll better right now because so many voters don't know much about the challengers, including their negatives.  But once a specific challenger emerges (my money is on Warren), and their individual negatives become more apparent to voters...the polls may read differently than they do now.

I still believe overall that Trump is probably going to lose, but he's got a puncher's chance.  I don't think 1) has even that.  I also believe that Republicans attacking Trump accomplishes nothing other than reducing that puncher's chance.

I agree those are both bad options.   That reality is at the root of my frustration -  I feel a semi-truck is barreling down on us and no one is willing to take the wheel and swerve out of the way.   Here it is,  in plain sight and heading straight toward us 15 months prior to the election,  and still no one is willing to take the wheel.

You know where I stand.   I have no desire to attack Trump,  but I don't want him as the GOP nominee.    I don't disagree that a bruising primary challenge is unlikely to be successful or productive.   That leaves the one GOOD option, IMO -  persuade him to not run for re-election, and pass the baton to someone else who can win and advance his priorities. 

15 months out,  that remains an option.  LBJ didn't say he wasn't running until,  I believe, March of 1968.     

[Cyber Liberty]

It's not the responsibility of "the GOP" to field a credible challenger.  It's the responsibility of a challenger to step forward and make themselves credible...if that is possible.

Sometimes, you have to pick the best of a bad set of options.  At this point, there are apparently only two:

1)  A GOP challenger decides to attack Trump hard, fight for the nomination, and risk splitting the party even if successful, or fatally wound Trump if unsuccessful, or

2) Rally behind Trump and take our best shot at winning with him.

Whatever the odds are on 2), I can't help but think they're still much better than 1).  Democrats in the abstract naturally are going to poll better right now because so many voters don't know much about the challengers, including their negatives.  But once a specific challenger emerges (my money is on Warren), and their individual negatives become more apparent to voters...the polls may read differently than they do now.

I still believe overall that Trump is probably going to lose, but he's got a puncher's chance.  I don't think 1) has even that.  I also believe that Republicans attacking Trump accomplishes nothing other than reducing that puncher's chance.

It makes them FEEELZ good, and that's enough in today's Stupid Society.  Everybody wants to be the sage who correctly predicts Trump's fall, even if it means the American Experiment is officially over.  "Being right" is more important than "being correct."

Pretty egotistical, if you ask me.

[Jazzhead]

BTW, @Maj. Bill Martin , I agree with you that Warren is likely to be the Dem nominee.    I think that the best way to beat her may be, ironically, to target Hispanic and black voters,  for whom the wonkish Warren should have remarkably little appeal.   That requires pushing how,  putting aside Trump's divisive rhetoric,  (i) his policies have put Hispanics and blacks to work, and (ii)  the enforcement of immigration laws is the key to sustaining that prosperity for Americans citizens willing to work.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I agree those are both bad options.   That reality is at the root of my frustration -  I feel a semi-truck is barreling down on us and no one is willing to take the wheel and swerve out of the way.   Here it is,  in plain sight and heading straight toward us 15 months prior to the election,  and still no one is willing to take the wheel.

You know where I stand.   I have no desire to attack Trump,  but I don't want him as the GOP nominee.    I don't disagree that a bruising primary challenge is unlikely to be successful or productive.   That leaves the one GOOD option, IMO -  persuade him to not run for re-election, and pass the baton to someone else who can win and advance his priorities. 

15 months out,  that remains an option.  LBJ didn't say he wasn't running until,  I believe, March of 1968.     

Well, rather than go around again about how likely that is, I'll simply agree with you.  If Trump announces sometimes between now and then that he's not going to run, and someone else who is conservative steps forward, I'll happily support him or her.

But unless until/that happens, we have to choose between the two options that currently are on the table.  Supporting a challenger who is antagonistic to Trump, or supporting Trump.

That's it.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

BTW, @Maj. Bill Martin , I agree with you that Warren is likely to be the Dem nominee.    I think that the best way to beat her may be, ironically, to target Hispanic and black voters,  for whom the wonkish Warren should have remarkably little appeal.   That requires pushing how,  putting aside Trump's divisive rhetoric,  (i) his policies have put Hispanics and blacks to work, and (ii)  the enforcement of immigration laws is the key to sustaining that prosperity for Americans citizens willing to work.

I agree -- I don't think she will appeal to blacks/Hispanics at all, and despite all the predictions, Trump actually does better than most other Republicans among those two groups. 

It's kind of interesting to speculate why, and I personally believe there are two reasons:

1) there are some blacks and hispanics who are socially conservative, and Trump's willingness to directly challenge some of the left's social positions helps him with those voters, and

2) I think a lot of citizens Hispanics and blacks rightly view illegal immigration as helping the wealthy, and hurting the poor/working class.  So, Trump's emphasis on immigration is helping him among those groups.  When you couple the economic growth with Trump's interests in prioritizing citizens over illegal immigrants, a fair number of hispanics and blacks believe that Trump actually cares about and is helping them.

[Jazzhead]

Well, rather than go around again about how likely that is, I'll simply agree with you.  If Trump announces sometimes between now and then that he's not going to run, and someone else who is conservative steps forward, I'll happily support him or her.

But unless until/that happens, we have to choose between the two options that currently are on the table.  Supporting a challenger who is antagonistic to Trump, or supporting Trump.

That's it.

So I guess its the Kobayashi Maru.   

[Cyber Liberty]

So I guess its the Kobayashi Maru.

Time to jigger the parameters of the drill....(IOW, cheat)

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So I guess its the Kobayashi Maru.

Well...that's only true if both scenarios are certain non-winners.  I don't think Trump is a sure loser in 2020- he's just an underdog in general.  Warren would be a really interesting matchup because it would present such a clear choice for voters.

[truth_seeker]

  I don't think Trump is a sure loser in 2020. 

Perhaps more likely than not, but he's still got a reasonable shot.

Since 2015, all of his detractors, have been wrong.

So why listen to them now?

And why believe polls, wrong before?"

I contend that Trump voters INTEND to confound pollsters; refuse to answer, or answer falsely.

And the "Bradley Effect"

O is it: "this time, it will be different?"

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Since 2015, all of his detractors, have been wrong.

So why listen to them now?

And why believe polls, wrong before?"

I'm not basing this on either detractors or polls. 

I'm basing it on things like demographic changes in swing states, a relentless 4 year media campaign that, while it will not sway many who voted for him in 2016, may sway undecideds or motivate more dems to go to the polls, and the reality that almost anyone the Dems nominate is sure to be more popular than was Hillary.

I add those things to the reality that the 2016 vote was really close, and I just see the Dems as having a systemic advantage.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Son of a mailman!

2016 was a hoot lemme tell ya'...

[truth_seeker]

I'm not basing this on either detractors or polls. 

I'm basing it on things like demographic changes in swing states, a relentless 4 year media campaign that, while it will not sway many who voted for him in 2016, may sway undecideds or motivate more dems to go to the polls, and the reality that almost anyone the Dems nominate is sure to be more popular than was Hillary.

I add those things to the reality that the 2016 vote was really close, and I just see the Dems as having a systemic advantage.

1. I concur that Trump is not a certain winner in 2020.

2. Wasting further discussion of an alternative, assuming Trump is  still running, is not a "credible" path.

[libertybele]

Something that I have heard and was an eye opener for me in listening to the Glenn Beck program the past few days.  IF Warren becomes president she will tank the economy with her socialistic agenda and in doing so she will succeed in tanking the global economy.  The reason given is that the U.S. is the ONLY economy right now offering any inkling of a return on one's money.  No other economy in the world is offering any sort of a return; the interest rates around the globe are negative.

Think about how are economy is right now compared to the rest of the World and how reliant the rest of the World is on the U.S.  D'Souza was absolutely correct to ask the question "America, what will we do without her"?

Capitalism works; cronyism does not, nor does socialism. I don't know of a single DEM candidate that isn't leaning towards socialism. Not one.

It is my understanding that Trump made some type of trade deals with the UK, France and Germany.

Above all else -- the DEMS must NOT win.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Above all else -- the DEMS must NOT win.

Then we have people like former Rep. Joe Walsh saying "It's not about the issues."

Of course it's about the issues.  A rotten personality or moral failings of a President are repaired the moment he leaves he office.  It's the issues -- the Supreme Court, laws, regulatory and administrative powers, etc., that have an effect long after that President is gone.  And those are all issues.

[libertybele]

I agree those are both bad options.   That reality is at the root of my frustration -  I feel a semi-truck is barreling down on us and no one is willing to take the wheel and swerve out of the way.   Here it is,  in plain sight and heading straight toward us 15 months prior to the election,  and still no one is willing to take the wheel.

You know where I stand.   I have no desire to attack Trump,  but I don't want him as the GOP nominee.    I don't disagree that a bruising primary challenge is unlikely to be successful or productive.   That leaves the one GOOD option, IMO -  persuade him to not run for re-election, and pass the baton to someone else who can win and advance his priorities. 

15 months out,  that remains an option.  LBJ didn't say he wasn't running until,  I believe, March of 1968.     

For starters, Trump still has over a year to complete his first term and a lot can happen.  IF there was anyone out there who could do a better job than Trump, they would come forward to run.  Like him or not, he has done some good.  Regardless of his character; he IS respected around the globe.

IMHO the only thing that is going to sink his ship is if he attacks the 2A; at that point I think he's sealed his fate.

@Jazzhead you need to remember where Bammy/DEMS took this country; mandatory health care with penalties, highest unemployment in history, highest food stamp use in history, stagnant wages, manufacturing jobs gone, relations with Israel almost non-existent, erosion of our military, disrespect around the globe.  Trump has turned those things around and headed us in a different direction.

Who can challenge those accomplishments on the GOP side? No one. IMHO, The DEMS cannot either that is why they are hoping to appeal to the socialistic mentality of the millenials and low information voters.  I believe that is why you see someone like AOC appealing to the leftists and why you see the popularity of Warren and socialism.  There is no one in the DEM party that can win against Trump on a Democratic platform, so they are veering far more left in hopes to win.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Something that I have heard and was an eye opener for me in listening to the Glenn Beck program the past few days.  IF Warren becomes president she will tank the economy with her socialistic agenda and in doing so she will succeed in tanking the global economy.  The reason given is that the U.S. is the ONLY economy right now offering any inkling of a return on one's money.  No other economy in the world is offering any sort of a return; the interest rates around the globe are negative.

Think about how are economy is right now compared to the rest of the World and how reliant the rest of the World is on the U.S.  D'Souza was absolutely correct to ask the question "America, what will we do without her"?

Capitalism works; cronyism does not, nor does socialism. I don't know of a single DEM candidate that isn't leaning towards socialism. Not one.

It is my understanding that Trump made some type of trade deals with the UK, France and Germany.

Above all else -- the DEMS must NOT win.

Sounds like Mr Beck is a bit confused.  The US is NOT the only country whose central bank (NOT economy) is providing positive yields, and it's not even close to having the highest of them.

https://tradingeconomics.com/bonds

I believe I remember, but don't quote me on this, that the actual recent stat was that if you take the debt currently being issued from all countries except the US the total is negative, which is quite different from saying everyone else is negative (and could likely be applied to any country issuing positive yield debt, and could definitely be applied to any country issuing positive yield debt if you excluded the US from the "other" pool).

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead you need to remember where Bammy/DEMS took this country; mandatory health care with penalties, highest unemployment in history, highest food stamp use in history, stagnant wages, manufacturing jobs gone, relations with Israel almost non-existent, erosion of our military, disrespect around the globe.  Trump has turned those things around and headed us in a different direction.

Yes, he has  @libertybele     And what motivates my remarks is to continue the direction he's set.  On the merits, it's a winner,  especially when contrasted with evil brew of socialism and race war that the Dems propose. 

But the Dems want to make the election not about policy,  but a referendum on Mr. Trump's character.   They've beaten that drum for four years now,  and the noise is distracting the electorate from the things that matter.   Trump was elected as a change agent,  and he's been that.   But now it is time to conserve what's been changed.   

[libertybele]

Yes, he has  @libertybele     And what motivates my remarks is to continue the direction he's set.  On the merits, it's a winner,  especially when contrasted with evil brew of socialism and race war that the Dems propose. 

But the Dems want to make the election not about policy,  but a referendum on Mr. Trump's character.   They've beaten that drum for four years now,  and the noise is distracting the electorate from the things that matter.   Trump was elected as a change agent,  and he's been that.   But now it is time to conserve what's been changed.

I strongly disagree.  Yes, they are attacking his character, but the drum that they are beating is "socialism".  So his policies and what he has accomplished ARE the issue.  What have the liberals accomplished?  What has Elizabeth Warren accomplished?  What is Trump promoting v. what is Warren promoting?  There are stark differences and those differences is what the country is going to decide on; do they want to continue on the path of Trump and keep our Republic in tact or go the way of the left towards socialism.  That is what the GOP and Trump need to hit home. Trump and the GOP need to repeatedly demonstrate the lefts push for socialism and why it will not work., i.e., Venezuela. Trying to replace Trump at this point is not only futile, but I believe detrimental to any GOP vying for a seat in 2020.

[libertybele]

Sounds like Mr Beck is a bit confused.  The US is NOT the only country whose central bank (NOT economy) is providing positive yields, and it's not even close to having the highest of them.

https://tradingeconomics.com/bonds

I believe I remember, but don't quote me on this, that the actual recent stat was that if you take the debt currently being issued from all countries except the US the total is negative, which is quite different from saying everyone else is negative (and could likely be applied to any country issuing positive yield debt, and could definitely be applied to any country issuing positive yield debt if you excluded the US from the "other" pool).

Thank you for the info; perhaps it was me misunderstanding what Glenn was trying to convey.

[Jazzhead]

I strongly disagree.  Yes, they are attacking his character, but the drum that they are beating is "socialism".  So his policies and what he has accomplished ARE the issue. 

Oh yes,  those accomplishments and the contrast with the Dems' socialism are what the GOP will be pushing, hard.  But how many will listen in the face of the deafening drumbeat that Trump is dangerous and unfit for office?    My point is that the reality show is distracting from the real issues,  and too many voters, I'm afraid, will base their vote as a thumbs up or down on Trump the man and his character.   

We can win on the issues,  but I fear we will lose - at a time when the stakes have never been higher - because voters will be distracted by the reality show.   Trump needs to be persuaded that he has served his purpose.   The GOP nominee must be someone else who can focus voters' minds on the real crisis - the race baiting and socialism that the Dems propose. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh yes,  those accomplishments and the contrast with the Dems' socialism are what the GOP will be pushing, hard.  But how many will listen in the face of the deafening drumbeat that Trump is dangerous and unfit for office?    My point is that the reality show is distracting from the real issues,  and too many voters, I'm afraid, will base their vote as a thumbs up or down on Trump the man and his character.   

We can win on the issues,  but I fear we will lose - at a time when the stakes have never been higher - because voters will be distracted by the reality show.   Trump needs to be persuaded that he has served his purpose.   The GOP nominee must be someone else who can focus voters' minds on the real crisis - the race baiting and socialism that the Dems propose.

We are just as screwed as a country if a Milquetoast Republican is elected who can't stand up to the rats in Congress, and any who would stand up to them will be just as tarred and feathered as Trump. The candidate you think would be great simply does not exist. 

Meanwhile, the rest of us understand you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yes, he has  @libertybele     And what motivates my remarks is to continue the direction he's set.  On the merits, it's a winner,  especially when contrasted with evil brew of socialism and race war that the Dems propose. 

But the Dems want to make the election not about policy,  but a referendum on Mr. Trump's character.   They've beaten that drum for four years now,  and the noise is distracting the electorate from the things that matter.   Trump was elected as a change agent,  and he's been that.   But now it is time to conserve what's been changed.

I share all those concerns.

One of the things many people like about Trump -- including me -- is that he has been willing to punch back much harder against the left and the media than any other Republican in recent memory, and a lot of Republicans love that.  Obviously, he also says some stupid things that are counterproductive.  Where the problem comes in is that I think a lot of Trump supporters have very little faith that other Republicans will continue that fight.  So, they interpret GOP criticism of his tone as being equivalent to the elites wanting a return to the days where we didn't fight back at all, and we accepted being called racists, or trying to ensure we didn't say anything "divisive", etc..

And I think most Republicans don't want to go back to that, because it amounts to letting the left win by permitting them to define the acceptable terms of public debate.