At a press conference at the Franklin Park Conservatory & Botanical Gardens in Columbus, Ohio, John Kasich, the state's Republican governor, announced that he has "suspended" his campaign for the U.S. presidency, cleveland.com reports. In a message on his Web site, Mr. Kasich called upon his supporters to "continue strengthening our families and our communities." Pressure from the Republican National Committee may have been a factor in Kasich's decision, another cleveland.com report suggests.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
John Kasich Suspends U.S. Presidential Campaign
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 39 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:59AM
Kasich's candidacy was a non-story.
Turkey’s prime minister resigns amid high-level rifts and deepening crises [washingtonpost.com]
With prospective change of premier, Turkey's Erdogan aims at stronger presidency [reuters.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:16PM
More filler?
Trump describes the first 100 days of his presidency -- sounds like a good chunk will be spent schmoozing on a warm golf course...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:15PM
It might have made a good follow-on to the story about Cruz dropping out. On the other hand, that story's comment section is quite full so bumping it back to the front page maybe wouldn't be the best idea.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:47PM
Users have not responded well to the bumping of stories, although I'm tempted to do it with the Takata airbag story.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:25PM
I'm not familiar with contested conventions at all. This is really the first primary I've ever paid full attention to. Usually, since I'm a Libertarian voter, I wait for the Republicans and Democrats to go through their own processes to decide who to put on my ballot in November and then promptly ignore those two in favor of whoever is the L candidate. Sanders kind of grabbed my attention, and before I knew it I was voting in the Democrat primary.
Anyway, does this mean that the Republicans must choose Trump at this point, even if he doesn't make the magic number? Wouldn't Cruz and Kasich still be on everybody's ballots in the upcoming primaries? Might there still be juicy drama in Cleveland? Or is it done with now in a very official sense?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:34PM
It's ovah. He'll make the number and even if he doesn't, there's no fight left in any of the other dogs. Cruz had a pretty good second ballot operation and that collapsed.
There could be a third party challenge, but there's always more talk about that than action.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:59PM
Trump still needs to make the magic number, but with Cruz and Kasich out it should be very easy. Their names will still be on the ballot, and they may even receive a few percent of the vote (Carson beat Kasich a few weeks ago in one state), but with the votes trending the way they are his nominate really is inevitable. That said, this cycle is so atypical, with emotions very high, and close margins, there could still be fireworks in Cleveland. For example, if delegates are disqualified on some technicality, forcing a second round of voting, who knows what might happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:41PM
> Their names will still be on the ballot, and they may even receive a few percent of the vote (Carson beat Kasich a few weeks ago in one state),
That's mostly the effect of vote-by-mail - people send in their ballots before candidates drop out.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:01PM
It's virtually guaranteed that Trump will hit the 1,237 delegates required to win on the "first ballot". Even if he lost Indiana he could have made it. Days prior to winning Indiana, he was polling above 50% in both Indiana and California. California in particular has a ton of delegates and he was doing bad there in earlier polls (closer to 30% than 50%). There are also 146 uncommitted delegates (kind of like the Democratic superdelegates) that may pick anyone. Weeks ago I thought that Trump might have to get around a quarter of these to succeed, but he needs basically zero of them now.
This helps illustrate it. [fivethirtyeight.com]
By getting 1,237 on the first ballot, he avoids any of the "dirty tricks" he has railed about in recent weeks (which seemed to have been a great topic which raised his polling). Moreover, with Cruz and Kasich dropping out, and statements by mainstream Republicans in the last two weeks cozying up to Trump, it is clear that the Republican Party establishment has given up hope of eliminating him. He will continue to campaign around the remaining states, and will probably do much better in California than originally forecasted. He will end up with 1300-1400 delegates when it's all over.
Theoretically he could do or say something so heinous that millions of people in the few remaining states refuse to vote for him, leading to a contested convention. But he has gotten away with months of politically incorrect statements so far.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:32PM
A nice summary.
I think that a point has not been raised, is the gulf between the media/GOP line, and the voters.
I suspect that both non-establishment candidates are getting a bounce from the general population noticing the attempts to fix the race. and the media really hasn't reported on perceived unfairness.
It seems to be working better for Trump than Bernie, but well....it's been unpredictable so far!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:47PM
> the attempts to fix the race. and the media really hasn't reported on perceived unfairness.
I disagree. Trump's whining about it got tons of coverage. Even Sanders' complaining about the NY system which, for all practical purposes, excluded formerly independent voters from participating, got coverage.
On the other hand, the reason why clinton has the super delegates locked down [counterpunch.org] (TL;DR Citizens United) seems to have gone unremarked.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:05PM
On the other hand, the reason why clinton has the super delegates locked down (TL;DR Citizens United) seems to have gone unremarked.
I see another clueless Citizens United rant. The real reason is because those superdelegates exist. There are other ways to pay for superdelegates that would bypass McCain-Feingold. What is missed here is the US Constitution remains upheld and we have a paper trail for those donations which wouldn't exist, if they were bypassing that provision of McCain-Feingold.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:02AM
That paper trail isn't doing shit is it? Whoop-de-fucking-do!
I see another clueless libertariat rant from someone who refuses to comprehend that while political spending is speech it is a fuckton more than just speech. Arguing that mccain-feingold had to go because it was imperfect is like arguing that firefox should be cancelled because it has, and will always have, some security holes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 06 2016, @02:40AM
That paper trail isn't doing shit is it?
You're talking about it. So yes, it is doing something.
Arguing that mccain-feingold had to go because it was imperfect
It was violating the First Amendment. That's a bit more than merely being "imperfect".
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:35PM
Kasich was always a bit of a long-shot bit, because he didn't have the funding, name recognition, and connections that other candidates had spent years cultivating. Also, he wasn't all that popular even in his home state of Ohio. And he made the fatal mistake of appearing sane and reasonable, which is the same reason Republican primary voters rejected Jeb! Bush and Jim Gilmore.
So now Republicans are stuck with their second presidential nominee ever to have absolutely no experience in any area of government (the other one? Wendell Willkie, in 1940, who lost badly to Franklin Roosevelt).
Of course, for their part the Democrats seem poised to pick a presidential nominee that is so unpopular that they could very well manage to lose [rasmussenreports.com] against a candidate with absolutely nothing on his resume that gives any indication that he'd be able to do the job well.
In the words of Yakov Smirnoff: What a country!
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:49PM
these days, the US presidency is mostly for show. the real shit goes on behind closed doors and with the 'approval' of the agencies that are never voted for and have zero transparency.
some things vary based on who the guy or girl in the suit is; but for the most part, the office is much bigger than any one person and the power broker groups are the ones that never go out of power or 'lose' elections.
I have lost all faith in my country's ability to do what is right for its own people. we are running on fumes and inertia at this point.
trump will find out, if he gets in, that he's not the prince he thinks he is and that others will call the shots. as they always have.
the public will get a show, which is what 'those people who stay hidden' want.
and the president will follow orders, as they have been in the last, oh, several decades. s/he will put on a great show, though, and the knuckle draggers will still think that their person won and will be all happy about it. yeah, right.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:22PM
Trump supporters I've talked to seem to believe that there will be a bureaucrat bloodbath with a President Trump cleaning house in various govt agencies and maybe even the Pentagon (similarly, a Ted Cruz talking point was "abolish the IRS!"). His mixed bag of views, some of which are pretty centrist/mainstream, are less of an issue to the establishment than the thought of someone who can't be controlled eliminating cushy federal jobs. After all, his catchphrase is "you're fired". His foreign policy is muddled, but it looks less adventurous than Clinton's would be, and we already have evidence of her being an interventionist. Trump seems to be willing to entertain closing bases where they are hardly needed, like in Germany, and avoiding wars or R2P engagements. However, he has said that he will bomb the shit out of ISIS, and all Presidents seem to intervene overseas more than they expect to before they become President.
We have to take Trump's claims of being incorruptible and self-funded with a heap of salt. He is the guy who was willing to essentially admit political bribery/playing the contribution game as a businessman. He will also be assisted by advisors who are far closer to the establishment than he portrays himself as. As the "art of the deal" man, he may be willing to compromise on anything.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:52PM
Trump supporters I've talked to seem to believe that there will be a bureaucrat bloodbath with a President Trump cleaning house...
They'll probably be right to an extent, expect remaining competent and useful government employees to get the axe with pro deregulation, pro corporation, pro development and pro military spending advocates rising even further than they already are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:43PM
He's not Cruz or Bush or Clinton. (yes, Clinton)
The only candidate clearly less likely to be "pro deregulation, pro corporation, pro development and pro military" than Trump is Sanders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @01:45PM
This. Call it the shadow government, deep state, the Illuminati, the Nomenklatura, whatever. Any way you slice it, the populace has always been at the mercy of ruling cliques/parties/juntas/plutocrats and always will, right up to the moment the guillotine blade drops.
(Score: 2) by scruffybeard on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:11PM
Kasich's approval rating is very high in Ohio. I was 62% in March, according to this article [fortune.com]. I think your assessment was correct though. He is moderate, running in a crowded field, and unwilling to throw raw meat to the base.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:23PM
Kasich was always a bit of a long-shot bit, because he didn't have the funding, name recognition, and connections that other candidates had spent years cultivating. Also, he wasn't all that popular even in his home state of Ohio. And he made the fatal mistake of appearing sane and reasonable, which is the same reason Republican primary voters rejected Jeb! Bush and Jim Gilmore.
What I heard is that all three were "establishment". They were perceived as being beholden to the system of power and corruption that controls much of US politics, supposedly willing to side with that against the people who elected them. That is worse than crazy in a lot of peoples' eyes. It's worth noting as a result, that only one of the three people you mention was able to carry their own state. While I can see how picking such a candidate as nominee would be wonderful from the point of view of anyone wanting to beat a Republican candidate, it would be stupid for Republican voters to go along with such an unpopular candidate.
For all the talk of Trump lying and such, the only reason he has a chance of getting into office is because he's promising a lot of stuff to people willing to vote for him. Either he delivers on that or he goes down in flames as he loses his power base. That's classic democratic populism. Trump's very reputation as an uncontrollable loose cannon is what gave him such an advantage in the primaries. And that may well work for him in the general election too. Clinton too is widely considered an establishment candidate who hasn't won anything on her own virtues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:35PM
I would think that nearly all the voters attracted to Trump voted for Mitt in 2012, although perhaps not as enthusiastically, because Obama was hated so much by the right for being the first black President AND a liberal Democrat. Yet Obama still won comfortably in terms of the electoral college.
Could Trump do better than Mitt in the northeast US? Maybe.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday May 05 2016, @10:19PM
because Obama was hated so much by the right for being the first black President AND a liberal Democrat
No, that was not why Obama was so hated [politifact.com].
If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan
And then there's the "bitter clingers" speech [townhall.com] where he cluelessly speculates about why so many people turn to religion, guns, racism, and other horrible things, and concludes it's because they don't have jobs. Even if he were somehow right, he still has shown himself to be remarkably terrible as creating said jobs.
Just because you choose to ignore Obama's considerable problems and faults doesn't mean that everyone has as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:08AM
You reveal your overwhelming bias failure by singling out those two cases. If those two things are the worst things Obama has done, then he is the best damn president we've ever had.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 06 2016, @03:08AM
You reveal your overwhelming bias failure by singling out those two cases.
Yes, I gave two well known examples. What would be the point of giving more examples?
If those two things are the worst things Obama has done, then he is the best damn president we've ever had.
Unless of course, you didn't keep your insurance. Or you're a bitter clinger who doesn't have concerns that matter, you just need more job.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday May 06 2016, @07:46AM
Or you're a bitter clinger who doesn't have concerns that matter, you just need more job.
Thus does it become clear to all an sundry that khallow is a bitter clinger. We suspected as much. Perhaps he needs more job? Maybe 15$ an hour? I, for one, think that bitter clingers concerns don't matter, I just want them to let go of the edges of my toilet bowl and go with the flow! Religion? That is for the intellectually challenged and emotionally insecure. Guns? Who would cling to guns? Clinging is the number one cause of poor marksmanship, right before flinching because you are gun-shy. Was there something else? Oh, clinging to racism! Yes, that was it! Black President, in the White House, after all. Yes, that does have to hurt, while you are holding on for dear life in my toilet bowl. khallow, I know you are better than this, I cry the tears of a thousand camels for what you have said. Come back to the land of the sane. Let it go, let it go! Be one with the earth and sky! And Bernie.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @02:41AM
-
In my town, the lynching jokes started the week of Obama's election.
And I still recall the lady at the book club saying, "I couldn't possibly vote for him--they can't think the way we do," to general agreement.
--And the "Don't Re-Nig in 2012" bumper stickers. --And the truck with the "Obamanation" panels embellished with swastikas. --etc. --etc.
-
The local prejudice against Democrats is normal, and almost goes without saying.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 06 2016, @03:09AM
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @06:00AM
I know, anecdote is not evidence, but:
Rural communities have a special kind of groupthink, especially in the present age of internet internet and media silos, and the people living in those communities tend to be more open about their beliefs and prejudices, especially in places and amongst groups they perceive as "safe", because they assume that everyone thinks the way they do...
Social pressures tend to work in the opposite direction in larger or more diverse places.
The Small Town Silo Effect also tends to reinforce both the best and the worst of their beliefs and behaviors--the people in my town are are some of the friendliest, most generous and the nicest people you could ever hope to meet, but they are no more perfect than I am.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @02:35PM
the people in my town are are some of the friendliest, most generous and the nicest people you could ever hope to meet, but they are no more perfect than I am.
And there are plenty of genuinely friendly, generous and nice Muslims who'd vote to introduce Sharia law at any opportunity they are given, maybe even willing to execute apostates personally if it was made legal. Because that's what they believe.
I know a Korean who said she hated the Japanese (because of what they did in the past), but one of her good friends is Japanese. She says "but that's different".
That's how people are.
But this can allow others to manipulate them by switching them to a suitable 'mode'. That's why you have people who say "I can't vote for XXX no matter what because he/she supports/opposes abortion". There are plenty of voters like that, hence the politicians try to guess which are the modes are the best to pick. It's more reliable to play to those modes/stereotypes than the rely on influencing the voters as individuals.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:59PM
As an Ohio resident that was in the room when Kasich signed his first bill into law, I can confirm that he's definitely corrupt: That bill was a giant tax break for the company I worked at whose owners just happened to be major donors to the Kasich campaign.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:34PM
As an Ohio resident that was in the room when Kasich signed his first bill into law, I can confirm that he's definitely corrupt
So why should Republicans be voting for the sane, but corrupt politicians?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 05 2016, @11:09PM
Because as long experience has taught us, sane and corrupt politicians don't do anywhere near as much damage as insane politicians do.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 06 2016, @12:45AM
Because as long experience has taught us, sane and corrupt politicians don't do anywhere near as much damage as insane politicians do.
While it's not always the case, I can think of some infamous 20th Century examples where some sane, corrupt politicians thought they could control an insane one and epic failed. The classic example is Hitler. If one looks at the history of Germany prior to the Second World War, one sees that after signing the onerous Treaty of Versailles, Germany immediately worked to undermine the treaty and plan future victory over its First World War foes. There's a whole generation of sane, corrupt leaders, conducting all sorts of schemes (such as military development with Russia, assassinations of people who knew too much about Treaty violations, and running an illegal General Staff for the German military). It's worth noting here that key elements of the destruction of the Wiemar Republic were conducted by the two Chancellors who preceded Hitler in that office (said black ops program was run under Kurt von Schleicher when he was serving in the military in the 20s and Franz von Papen overthrew the government of the state of Prussia) under the leadership of President Hindenburg who had surrounded himself with advisors hostile to the Republic. The writing was on the wall.
Hitler was too powerful to be ignored or removed. So the sane, corrupt people assisted him in becoming Chancellor because, hey, they were sure he would be a useful puppet.
One sees a similar situation with Joseph Stalin in the USSR. He was a very useful tool so the sane, corrupt politicians ignored his madness. Then in the backstabbing that followed Lenin's death, Stalin turned out on top.
So maybe, individual sane, corrupt politicians don't do as much damage, but in groups, they're the enablers of the insane ones.
Finally, there's the prison peanut butter effect. There's always been rather frivolous lawsuits coming from prisoners (at least in places that allow the practice), including as I understand it, a US lawsuit to change the brand of peanut butter used in some prison system to something of better quality. I recall the lawsuit would have been from the 70s or 80s, briefly referred to in You Are Going to Prison [amazon.com] by Jim Hogshire. The idea is that there is no recourse for terrible conditions in many US prisons except filing a lawsuit. So as a result lawsuits are filed even for relatively trivial stuff like the choice of peanut butter.
In a similar fashion, there's no recourse for the endless stream of sane, corrupt "establishment" politicians except voting in the supposedly insane ones to rock the boat or even destroy it altogether.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Friday May 06 2016, @01:06PM
Every once in a while I agree with an entire post of yours, and it leaves me so, so confused.
I still think you (as an S/N poster) are a performance art piece, but every once in a while...
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday May 06 2016, @02:22AM
As a former Ohio resident:
Is there a such a thing as a non-corrupt Ohio politician?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @02:54AM
Lebron James?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 06 2016, @01:40PM
Well, I'm pretty sure my local mayor is OK: She lives on my block in a fairly modest home, and the first thing she did when she came in was fire some city employees who weren't doing any actual work and fixed a bunch of problems with the road department.
Also, of the famous ones, the only thing I can see that Dennis Kucinich (now-former Democratic congressman who ran for president a couple of times but didn't get very far) snagged for himself beyond his salary was his wife.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.