>Hopefully this kind of thinking isn't common among the Bernie
>supporters come the fall. It's awfully reminiscent of the
>"Gore is no better than Bush" idea, which I hope we can all
>agree was thoroughly and disastrously wrong.

>Kasich is not the aw-shucks, middle-of-the-road, friendly
>conservative that his campaign is trying to sell. He was a
>leader in the Gingrich revolution, including the government
>shutdown and the Clinton impeachment. He's a firm believer in
>austerity economics. He literally worked for Goldman Sachs
>(that's paychecks, not just donations!). He's severely
>restricted abortion access in Ohio. And as he told us
>forcefully in his reelection campaign, he was never 'soft' on
>Obamacare. He accepted the funds for Medicaid expansion, but
>he still strongly favors repeal, even including the Medicaid
>expansion. I could go on and on about Kasich.

His repug opponents have accused him time and time again as being in favor of obamacare. His limp-wristed responses make it pretty clear to me that he's not out to tear it down. And these other observations you're making are mostly what Buddy has identified as being what he DOESN'T vote based on. I'm paraphrasing Buddy here....but he's said that it's not about who they are or what they say. It's about the real, pragmatic results of their presidency. I think you're greatly overstating those differences. The lip service might be different....I'd contend the actual results wouldn't be.


>There are plenty more reasons that a Clinton presidency would
>be a hell of a lot better than a Kasich presidency. But this
>alone is enough for me. I'm on record saying that I don't like
>Bernie Sanders, that I don't trust him, and that even if
>elected, I think he would be a bad president and would set
>back many of the issues he claims to care about. Nonetheless,
>the Supreme Court alone is enough to make it so that I would
>vehemently support him in the fall, if it came to that.

But again though....if we're being pragmatic:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-kasich-id-consider-nominating-merrick-garland-supreme-court-election-2016/

And keep in mind...these are the statements he's making WHILE running in the primary. How much MORE similar to a Clinton/Obama platform will he get to in the general? Then you have to anticipate Clinton pivoting right in the general from the positions she's undertaken against Sanders? It results in a very unpragmatic decision between the two in my eyes.

Here's why I'm even bringing this up.....it's obviously a hypothetical argument. Kasich doesn't have a chance. And the pragmatic argument for supporting Clinton is crystal clear if the GOP selects Trump or Cruz. But in principle....I'd contend that any pragmatic reason for supporting Clinton would, in the very least, be less justifiable against a Kasich presidency.