WSJ still advocating for Kasich. Good for them…

I don’t always agree with The Wall Street Journal editorial board (they’re a bit too… Mark Sanford… for me), but when they’re right they’re right.

And they’ve been very right lately about John Kasich, making the logical arguments for him that seem to escape a lot of Republicans who ought to know better, such as our own Lindsey Graham.

In today’s editorial, “The Real Kasich Threat,” the editors first note how fervently both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz want Kasich out of the race, then point out, again, how unwise that would be for the GOP:

As for Mr. Cruz, he’d have to sweep nearly every remaining primary to get to 1,237. He also knows Mr. Kasich has a better chance than the Texan does of denying Mr. Trump delegates in states like Pennsylvania and Maryland that vote on April 26. But Mr. Cruz wants to drive Mr.

The guy Republicans will nominate if they wan to win.

The guy Republicans will nominate, if they want to win.

Kasich out of the race before the convention even if it means running a greater risk that Mr. Trump can get closer to 1,237. Mr. Cruz wants Mr. Kasich out now because he figures the delegates in Cleveland will choose Mr. Cruz if the choice is down to him and Mr. Trump. But if Mr. Kasich is still an option, the delegates might favor him as a better November candidate.

Mr. Kasich defeats Hillary Clinton by 6.3 points in current head-to-head polls, according to the Real Clear Politics average. Mr. Cruz loses by 3.1 and Mr. Trump by 10.8. Changing these polls would require gut renovations of the Trump and Cruz public images that will be hard for either to execute.

Mr. Kasich did the public service of winning Ohio’s delegates—with which Mr. Trump might have locked up the nomination—and he deserves a chance to see if he can win Pennsylvania or pick up delegates in the East and California. He has no hope of reaching 1,237 delegates before the convention, but what Messrs. Trump and Cruz really fear is that the convention might want to nominate a potential winner.


24 thoughts on “WSJ still advocating for Kasich. Good for them…

  1. Howard

    If they’re going to advocate for someone who has no chance of winning the nomination, why not advocate for Lindsey Graham?

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      You’re missing the point.

      In poll after poll after poll (and you know how Trump loves to cite polls), Kasich is the ONLY one of the three who can beat Hillary Clinton.

      So either the GOP nominates Kasich, or the party should just give up and disband. Y’all know I think the parties are pretty pointless anyway, but if they’re not interested in winning elections, there really IS no point to them. I mean, that’s ALL they’re good for…

      1. Howard

        I doubt Kasich could beat Clinton. How are these polls conducted, the usual land line phone calls?

        What do you mean they’re not good for anything, in the last election I saw a Clerk of Court candidate and a Coroner candidate running as a Republican. And you know we can’t have a Democrat elected in either of those political positions.

      2. Doug Ross

        You’re missing the point that any poll regarding Kasich vs. Hillary actually represents people’s view of Hillary, not Kasich. I would suspect that most of those who chose Kasich couldn’t pick him out of a lineup. If by some miracle he became the nominee, his mythical lead would evaporate within a few days once people started learning more about him.

        1. Doug Ross

          And if Wisconsin is any indication, Kasich is purely an afterthought in any discussion and will remain so as he staggers across the country for the next few weeks trying to claim “victory” by being rejected by 80% of the Republican voters in each primary. He’s a dead man walking right now and unless he pulls a win out of Pennsylvania, will be having drinks with Lindsey Graham on May 1 to commiserate over why the American people had no interest in boring establishment Republicans any more.

        2. Doug Ross

          Upcoming primary schedule – where does Kasich win? Where besides PA does he have a chance of even finishing 2nd? He’s still behind Rubio in the delegate count by 28. After April 26, there are only 10 states left.

          Apr 19
          New York · 95 delegates

          Apr 26
          Connecticut · 28 delegates
          Delaware · 16 delegates
          Maryland · 38 delegates
          Pennsylvania · 17 delegates
          Rhode Island · 19 delegates

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            You ask, “where does Kasich win?” I don’t know. It’s not anything I’ve given any thought to. The point is for him to survive, to still be at the table when the nomination is decided at the convention.

            Yes, it’s bad he didn’t do better in Wisconsin. But again, I haven’t pinned my hopes on him WINNING anywhere else, although it would be awesome if he did.

            The point is a contested convention, one at which alternatives to Trump and Cruz can emerge. It could be Romney or Ryan, although I’d prefer it be Kasich — not only because I like him better, but because he subjected himself to the primary process and survived.

            If you want to talk probabilities (what is likely to happen, rather than what SHOULD happen, which is what concerns me), then I say the most likely outcome is that Cruz is nominated. Party leaders don’t have the guts, or the juice, to deny the nomination to both the first and second-place finishers (it remains to be seen whether they have the character to deny it to Trump).

            This probability was greatly increased by Graham, Romney, et al., lining up behind Cruz — which to me was outrageous. They have set a pattern of capitulation to this man they all despise, one likely to be repeated at the convention.

            What I’m doing is looking for some hope, any hope, that the nation will not be faced with Hillary Clinton (or, even worse, Bernie) on the one hand and either Trump or Cruz on the other. It is essential that there be SOME hope. This is not a game; this is our country…

        3. Brad Warthen Post author

          Why do you say that (“his mythical lead would evaporate within a few days once people started learning more about him”)? What’s not to like?

          And if he does well against her just because of her negatives, how come she beats Cruz and Trump, whom they DO know?

          1. Doug Ross

            What’s not to like? The people who picked him in the poll don’t even know what his positions are and, unless they are from Ohio, don’t know what he’s done.

            He’s the generic anyone-but-Hilary candidate.

  2. bud

    Brad you and the WSJ make a compelling argument that good Democrats should go to the polls and vote for Donald Trump wherever possible. It’s imperative that a Democrat gets elected to the White House. Otherwise we’ll end up with more wars, yuuge budget deficits and another major recession. Frankly it really doesn’t matter which of the Republicans would ultimately become POTUS; they’re all equally reactionary on policy. They all want to give tax cuts to the rich and increase the already over bloated military machine. That would only result in greater income inequality and more ISIS type groups. Kasich seems a bit less radical than the others but that just makes him more attractive to the voters. Once in office he would turn into George W. Bush. Do we really want that?

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Actually, Bud, “GOOD Democrats” would do no such thing.

      It would be an outrage, a betrayal of the country, to deliberately set up someone like Trump as the alternative to your preferred candidate, for the simple reason that YOUR CANDIDATE MIGHT NOT WIN.

      If you vote in a primary other than the party you usually vote for, the only moral, conscionable thing to do is to vote for the one you think would do the best (or least bad) job, for the simple reason that THAT person might win..

      Anyone who does anything else should lose the right to vote. Such people are a danger to the country…

    2. Doug Ross

      “Otherwise we’ll end up with more wars, yuuge budget deficits and another major recession”

      You mean like Obama’s presidency?

      1. Claus

        At least some people got free Obamaphones out of Obama’s presidency… Queen Elizabeth got an iPod.

  3. bud

    Brad you only say that because you still see the GOP in some favorable light. I don’t. So the only morally defensible choice is the one that maximizes the possibility of their demise. Why should I lose my vote for doing what I think is best for the country?

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      BECAUSE you do not control the outcome. You have to recognize the reality that the person you prefer MAY NOT WIN. For instance, despite all the polls to the contrary, Hillary could be hit by new scandalous revelations (regarding her emails, for instance) in the fall that damage her to the extent that even Trump could beat her.

      That’s why, if you DO have the opportunity to influence the nominating process of the party opposite the one you prefer, you must do all you can to make sure that fallback candidate is the best, not the worst. It’s unconscionable to do anything else…

  4. Mark Stewart

    We all need to come to grips with the fact that the real problem is all five candidates are unsatisfactory to the entire country. That’s the bottom line.

    I don’t think it’s a situation that has arisen for almost 100 years.

    Maybe we need two brokered conventions.

    We are at a place were the devil we don’t know beats the devil(s) we do know. That’s scary.

Comments are closed.