Raising the minimum wage would be great for the economy IMO, but doing so only in Cleveland would have been disastrous for Cleveland.  There's no such thing as a Cleveland-specific economy.

We think we know it all, but we don't. By and large, for decades, critics of minimum-wage increases have cried that they will reduce employment and raise prices. By and large, that has not been the case, except sometimes initially after the increase, and in certain locales. Several years ago, Washington state increased its minimum wage and critics said that it would be a boon to Idaho towns just across the border. The opposite was true. Below are several articles abut Seattle's $15 minimum wage plan, which is being phased in over several years. The phasing is a good approach. Prices are not rising, and employment is increasing. Then again, Seattle is booming. Then again, the increases haven't slowed the boom. Conditions vary from place to place, so maybe it makes some sense to do this on a localized level. Putting an increase on the ballot does not guarantee it will pass, but stripping voters of the chance to decide their own fate pretty much guarantees that it won't. When Republicans can't win on the issues, they win by stacking the deck.

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/15-wage-has-little-impact-on-seattles-thriving-labor-market-report-suggests/

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/01/472716129/one-year-on-seattle-explores-impact-of-15-minimum-wage-law

 

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/04/18/early-analysis-of-seattles-15-wage-law-effect-on-prices-minimal-one-year-after-implementation/

 

Raising the minimum wage would be great for the economy IMO, but doing so only in Cleveland would have been disastrous for Cleveland.  There's no such thing as a Cleveland-specific economy.

 

Imagine all the young workers who could afford new guns to take to school and daycares though?  What about the NRA 327?  What about the NRA?    :wink:

Posting the reddit link, so feel free to read what 17 year old leftists feel about the issue :-) 

 

Governor Kasich signs bill blocking the people of Cleveland from voting on a $15 minimum wage

 

 

Republicans love to preach about local control unless they're not in power.  It's amazing.  I don't think the Cleveland $15 minimum wage proposal is a good idea, but I don't think the state should block it from upon high either.  Cities within the same state can have vastly differents costs of living.  Seattle vs Spokane, San Francisco vs. Sacramento, New York vs. Buffalo, Miami vs. Jacksonville, etc.  It seems reasonable to me that cities should be at least allowed to set their own minimum wage if they so choose.

Republicans love local control since township trustees and local school board officials are easy and cheap to corrupt as compared to say, presidents. Only the big spenders get to manipulate federal officials.

Republicans love local control since township trustees and local school board officials are easy and cheap to corrupt as compared to say, presidents. Only the big spenders get to manipulate federal officials.

 

Also, larger administrative areas make it difficult to redline "certain people" out of the polity.

Posting the reddit link, so feel free to read what 17 year old leftists feel about the issue :-) 

 

Governor Kasich signs bill blocking the people of Cleveland from voting on a $15 minimum wage

 

 

Republicans love to preach about local control unless they're not in power.  It's amazing.  I don't think the Cleveland $15 minimum wage proposal is a good idea, but I don't think the state should block it from upon high either.  Cities within the same state can have vastly differents costs of living.  Seattle vs Spokane, San Francisco vs. Sacramento, New York vs. Buffalo, Miami vs. Jacksonville, etc.  It seems reasonable to me that cities should be at least allowed to set their own minimum wage if they so choose.

 

If that's the case, wouldn't it be cheaper to live in Cleveland? It's one of the cheapest cities to live in due to the abundance of housing, job access, etc. compared to say, Columbus.

^Depends how you measure it.  Most cost of living comparisons will claim that Cleveland is a bit more expensive relative to Cincinnati and Columbus.  Of course most of these evaluate entire regions and not just the city proper.  Regardless, I don't think the $15 minimum wage is a good idea for the city of Cleveland, but I also don't think the power to regulate a minimum wage should be stripped from them.

The whole "small government, states rights" group seems to be just "stop the feds from telling us we can't keep screwing over our cities." 

The whole "small government, states rights" group seems to be just "stop the feds from telling us we can't keep screwing over our cities." 

 

I think it was really about people from conservative states pushing back against Obama.  I bet now that Republicans control the federal government, you stop hearing so much about states' rights.

The whole "small government, states rights" group seems to be just "stop the feds from telling us we can't keep screwing over our cities." 

 

I think it was really about people from conservative states pushing back against Obama.  I bet now that Republicans control the federal government, you stop hearing so much about states' rights.

 

It's likely to come up again, in a weed context.  Intra-state drug markets, along with the right and wrong of drug use, are almost a bullseye for what states' rights are supposed to entail.

Maybe, but it also reminds me of discrimination laws that were finally struck down in the 60s, or even the very recent gay marriage issue, which again saw the federal government telling the states "no, you can't keep oppressing your citizens."  As a general rule in modern politics, cities tend to be more liberal, states tend to be more conservative, and the federal government is somewhere in between.  State governments in many cases are openly hostile towards their cities, seeing them as resources to be strip-mined for redistribution to "proper folk" in the country.  The federal government is the only entity therefore that can put a stop to such shenanigans.  State governments are like the bratty kid who throws a tantrum because their parents spanked them for kicking the dog. 

As I'm sure jmecklenborg[/member] has pointed out somewhere in this thread, Ohio is in a strange position because we have multiple big cities so it's easy to pick on cities in general. Only just recently did Ohio's mayors come together and say, "gee, shouldn't we all work together and form a group to fight for urban areas?" In many states where there is only a single big city, even if the cities don't necessarily get "their fair share" of funding from the state, they don't generally get screwed over so bad by the statehouse.

 

But yeah, the "local control" argument is a complete distraction. It only applies to people in higher offices meddling in their business. As soon as they have the power, the same politicians will meddle in the affairs of government levels underneath them.

Speaking of suburb/conservative rural areas vs. City, I would love to take a deeper look into the economic costs of sprawl, including but not limited to: cost of service to high density areas for natural gas, water, road infrastructure, electricity, etc. vs. the same to low density areas.  I wonder if there has ever been a comprehensive study on this?

^This is a pretty good article about suburbanization and it's effect on infrastructure costs. http://www.urbanophile.com/2012/12/17/replay-this-is-why-were-broke/

 

The key takeaway IMO is this map showing the urbanized area of Buffalo in 1950 and in 2000. The population is almost exactly the same, but the infrastructure covers about three times as much land, leading to us as a whole paying three times as much per person for roads, sewers, water, electricity transmission, etc. Obviously it isn't a perfect 1:1 correlation in costs, but some of the costs associated (especially maintenance) are essentially 1:1.

 

 

Perhaps this is better for another thread.

I wonder how accurate that is. A lot of those towns existed in 1951, like East Aurora and Springville. What defines urbanized in this context?

It is a somewhat dubious definition. From the original article this map came from: http://www.urbanophile.com/2010/04/27/chuck-banas-this-is-sprawl/

 

Shown on the map at left is the extent of urbanized area in Metro Buffalo in 1950 and 2000 (yellow and red, respectively). The wording of the official U.S. Census Bureau definition is a little tricky, but for these purposes urbanized area refers to just about any census block within Erie and Niagara Counties that has a population density greater than 1,000 people per square mile

As I'm sure jmecklenborg[/member] has pointed out somewhere in this thread, Ohio is in a strange position because we have multiple big cities so it's easy to pick on cities in general. Only just recently did Ohio's mayors come together and say, "gee, shouldn't we all work together and form a group to fight for urban areas?" In many states where there is only a single big city, even if the cities don't necessarily get "their fair share" of funding from the state, they don't generally get screwed over so bad by the statehouse.

 

But yeah, the "local control" argument is a complete distraction. It only applies to people in higher offices meddling in their business. As soon as they have the power, the same politicians will meddle in the affairs of government levels underneath them.

 

The Massachusetts Statehouse is right in Downtown Boston just like our capitol building is right in the middle of Columbus, but there is a huge difference. 

 

If the 3C's HSR had been built back in the 1980s, I think it would have dramatically changed the culture of the state.  Right now there is no shared culture or productive rivalry (like LA vs SF).  OSU is mostly ignored in Cincinnati and probably Columbus. 

 

 

  OSU is mostly ignored in Cincinnati and probably Columbus. 

 

 

 

?

 

might need editing

  OSU is mostly ignored in Cincinnati and probably Columbus. 

 

 

 

?

 

might need editing

 

My pupils are dilated from an eye exam.  My bad.  I meant Cincinnati and probably Cleveland.  But I can't say for sure because I've never lived there. 

 

  OSU is mostly ignored in Cincinnati and probably Columbus. 

 

 

 

?

 

might need editing

 

My pupils are dilated from an eye exam.  My bad.  I meant Cincinnati and probably Cleveland.  But I can't say for sure because I've never lived there. 

 

Cleveland is almost as strongly Buckeye territory as Columbus is.

Cleveland doesn't have any major CFB programs of its own, so it defaults to OSU.  Another factor is that Cleveland is definitively within Ohio, lacking ties to other states.  Cincinnati and Toledo are on state borders and both are in the territories of other major CFB programs.

Devils fans "traingate" up to Newark for hockey games. It's pretty awesome, actually. I imagine with 3-C it would have been the same thing with Cleveland area OSU fans. 

Devils fans "traingate" up to Newark for hockey games. It's pretty awesome, actually. I imagine with 3-C it would have been the same thing with Cleveland area OSU fans. 

 

The 3C proposal should have played this up more.  As I recall, there was an unwillingness to even consider that service, let alone promote it as a reason to support the plan.  I still blame 3C for giving us Kasich in the first place.  Tossed him a whiffleball and he whacked it.

Devils fans "traingate" up to Newark for hockey games. It's pretty awesome, actually. I imagine with 3-C it would have been the same thing with Cleveland area OSU fans. 

 

The 3C proposal should have played this up more.  As I recall, there was an unwillingness to even consider that service, let alone promote it as a reason to support the plan.  I still blame 3C for giving us Kasich in the first place.  Tossed him a whiffleball and he whacked it.

 

What was so dumb is that taking the money blown on the Portsmouth Bypass (approx. $400 million) and adding it to the federal grant would have meant a pretty solid capital investment, i.e. brand-new trains, passing sidings where needed, and getting the Cincinnati station in DT Cincinnati instead of suburban Bond Hill. 

 

 

Devils fans "traingate" up to Newark for hockey games. It's pretty awesome, actually. I imagine with 3-C it would have been the same thing with Cleveland area OSU fans. 

 

The 3C proposal should have played this up more.  As I recall, there was an unwillingness to even consider that service, let alone promote it as a reason to support the plan.  I still blame 3C for giving us Kasich in the first place.  Tossed him a whiffleball and he whacked it.

 

I don't know, once the lie about the 3C being a "35 MPH train" got out there, it's was hard to overcome that. Once people believe that a lie is a fact, it's nearly impossible to convince them otherwise.

Devils fans "traingate" up to Newark for hockey games. It's pretty awesome, actually. I imagine with 3-C it would have been the same thing with Cleveland area OSU fans. 

 

The 3C proposal should have played this up more.  As I recall, there was an unwillingness to even consider that service, let alone promote it as a reason to support the plan.  I still blame 3C for giving us Kasich in the first place.  Tossed him a whiffleball and he whacked it.

 

I don't know, once the lie about the 3C being a "35 MPH train" got out there, it's was hard to overcome that. Once people believe that a lie is a fact, it's nearly impossible to convince them otherwise.

 

I blame Strickland for much of that. The guy was so weak. 

Devils fans "traingate" up to Newark for hockey games. It's pretty awesome, actually. I imagine with 3-C it would have been the same thing with Cleveland area OSU fans. 

 

The 3C proposal should have played this up more.  As I recall, there was an unwillingness to even consider that service, let alone promote it as a reason to support the plan.  I still blame 3C for giving us Kasich in the first place.  Tossed him a whiffleball and he whacked it.

 

What was so dumb is that taking the money blown on the Portsmouth Bypass (approx. $400 million) and adding it to the federal grant would have meant a pretty solid capital investment, i.e. brand-new trains, passing sidings where needed, and getting the Cincinnati station in DT Cincinnati instead of suburban Bond Hill. 

 

 

 

... and lest us not forget that brilliant $330M Opportunity Corridor highway a-building on the east side of Cleveland, which Kasich not only went to bat for, he diverted Turnpike tolls to get it done... Now there's not only no 3-Cs, which would have not only modernized the state and bound it more together, it would have provided thousands of jobs, greater density, etc., ... now of course Kasich is pulling his pockets out when asked to up operating costs for the state's mass transit systems...

 

... and yet it's almost hilarious to consider how the media played up Kasich as this highly reasonable moderate compared to Donald Trump.  If it weren't for the horrible fact that the country flushed itself down the toilet politically in electing Trump as president, a part of me is glad Kasich's grand scheme for the 2020 presidency has seemingly been derailed, at least for now... Couldn't have happened to nicer, phony-moderate guy.

Devils fans "traingate" up to Newark for hockey games. It's pretty awesome, actually. I imagine with 3-C it would have been the same thing with Cleveland area OSU fans. 

 

The 3C proposal should have played this up more.  As I recall, there was an unwillingness to even consider that service, let alone promote it as a reason to support the plan.  I still blame 3C for giving us Kasich in the first place.  Tossed him a whiffleball and he whacked it.

 

What was so dumb is that taking the money blown on the Portsmouth Bypass (approx. $400 million) and adding it to the federal grant would have meant a pretty solid capital investment, i.e. brand-new trains, passing sidings where needed, and getting the Cincinnati station in DT Cincinnati instead of suburban Bond Hill. 

 

 

 

... and lest us not forget that brilliant $330M Opportunity Corridor highway a-building on the east side of Cleveland, which Kasich not only went to bat for, he diverted Turnpike tolls to get it done... Now there's not only no 3-Cs, which would have not only modernized the state and bound it more together, it would have provided thousands of jobs, greater density, etc., ... now of course Kasich is pulling his pockets out when asked to up operating costs for the state's mass transit systems...

 

... and yet it's almost hilarious to consider how the media played up Kasich as this highly reasonable moderate compared to Donald Trump.  If it weren't for the horrible fact that the country flushed itself down the toilet politically in electing Trump as president, a part of me is glad Kasich's grand scheme for the 2020 presidency has seemingly been derailed, at least for now... Couldn't have happened to nicer, phony-moderate guy.

 

 

Every a-hole thing Kasich did since taking office in 2011 was prep for the presidential run.  And that run was absolutely pathetic. Since he stuck around to the end it makes it look like he was "in the race" much more than he was.  He was never in the race.  Nobody liked him. 

 

 

Speaking of suburb/conservative rural areas vs. City, I would love to take a deeper look into the economic costs of sprawl, including but not limited to: cost of service to high density areas for natural gas, water, road infrastructure, electricity, etc. vs. the same to low density areas.  I wonder if there has ever been a comprehensive study on this?

 

strongtowns.org is the place to start for all of that stuff.  But here's a good graphic that makes the rounds from time to time.  I think the numbers are a bit conservative, in that the differences are likely even bigger in practice, but muddled due to other factors.  Plus there's no real definition of urban vs. suburban, so it could be comparing "streetcar suburb" urban and "early post-war suburban" which is much closer than say "inner-city rowhouse" urban and "exurban 1-acre lot" suburb. 

Thanks for sending that.  Yes, got to believe even that is a bit conservative.  Compare for example living in Over the Rhine vs. living in West Chester or Mason.  There are some areas like Uptown, even Mt. Lookout and Columbia Tusculum, that I bet is less than what the graphic shows for suburban and maybe even closer to what they say for Urban.  But when you get out a bit further, it has got to go up quite a bit.

 

Cincinnati really is quite dense in most areas outside the hills up to I-275 loop.  Compared to say a place like Indianapolis, you can start downtown all the way up to 275 on Vine Street and that whole area is quite dense, even when you start hitting suburbs it is still fairly dense.  I bet the hill areas on the West Side and of course the Indian Hill area, etc. the costs are much higher per household.  Interesting look.

Indian Hill is an interesting beast because while it is very spread-out (1, 3, and 5 acre lots), it's also pretty low-service from an infrastructure standpoint.  The streets are mostly narrow, no curb and gutter, no stoplights, no sidewalks, virtually no streetlights, most but not all of the city has no sewers, and since it's all pretty high-value property, that allows taxes to be lower and funneled mostly to the school system.  Wealthy suburbs seem to be relatively resilient financially, as long as they remain wealthy.  It's the middling suburbs that also have city-level services (wide streets, sidewalks, lighting, full sewer and water systems) plus all the extra school bussing, police, and fire coverage while not having the value and thus the tax base to pay for it all in the long term that are in the biggest trouble.  There's also things that aren't governmental like gas, electricity, telecom, and even things like mail and package delivery that are more expensive to provide in the suburbs, but which don't cost any more to the user despite all the extra piping, poles, and wires they require. 

That is why Columbus' property and sales taxes are so high. We have a lot of very low density areas such as cornfields, quarries, flood plains, semi-rural areas and sprawl that still have city-type infrastructure. Even though those taxes are set at the county level, the infrastructure still exists while taking in little revenue.

Low density areas aren't necessarily more expensive or financially insolvent.  Farms can get by just fine with narrow streets, unpaved preferably, ditches instead of curbs and sewers, wells and septic tanks, and you're not going to have a 5-minute response time from the police or fire department.  In most rural farming locations, that's pretty much what you've got, and it works fine.  It's when you start layering on those city services, which you see with leapfrog subdivision development, that it becomes a problem. 

Indian Hill is an interesting beast because while it is very spread-out (1, 3, and 5 acre lots), it's also pretty low-service from an infrastructure standpoint.  The streets are mostly narrow, no curb and gutter, no stoplights, no sidewalks, virtually no streetlights, most but not all of the city has no sewers, and since it's all pretty high-value property, that allows taxes to be lower and funneled mostly to the school system.  Wealthy suburbs seem to be relatively resilient financially, as long as they remain wealthy.  It's the middling suburbs that also have city-level services (wide streets, sidewalks, lighting, full sewer and water systems) plus all the extra school bussing, police, and fire coverage while not having the value and thus the tax base to pay for it all in the long term that are in the biggest trouble.  There's also things that aren't governmental like gas, electricity, telecom, and even things like mail and package delivery that are more expensive to provide in the suburbs, but which don't cost any more to the user despite all the extra piping, poles, and wires they require. 

 

The less-regulated private sector is certainly willing to pass on those costs! I shipped a car part out to be worked on and set the return address to my home so that it would be shipped home when it was done. Shipping each way was $93. The next one I shipped I set the return address as my business which is in a mall. Since UPS goes to the mall every day, the shipping was only $36 each way. That does factor in the fact that there is always someone at my business to accept packages whereas I am rarely home during the hours UPS delivers, though.

Not to armchair moderate, but I think this part of the discussion might fit better in the Sprawl thread.

It's about the cost of community services. In Ohio, even with the Current Agricultural Use Variation (whereby farmland is taxed on its agricultural use rather than on its development potential), taxes on farmland pay far more than the services they need. Meanwhile, suburban housing receives farm more in services than its taxes provide for. In other words, taxes on farmland (as well as those on commercial and industrial property) subsidize residential public services. American Farmland Trust has done numerous studies on this -- including several in Ohio (Butler, Clark, and Knox counties, and Madison Township and Village in Lake County).

Yes, CAUV taxes have through the roof under Kasich. His policy people spotted raising those as a source of revenue since farmers in Ohio were doing really well from 2007-2011. Immediately after the bill passed weather began screwing Ohio farmers then low crop prices hit. So as farmers' revenue tanked their taxes went up!

Indian Hill is an interesting beast because while it is very spread-out (1, 3, and 5 acre lots), it's also pretty low-service from an infrastructure standpoint.  The streets are mostly narrow, no curb and gutter, no stoplights, no sidewalks, virtually no streetlights, most but not all of the city has no sewers, and since it's all pretty high-value property, that allows taxes to be lower and funneled mostly to the school system.  Wealthy suburbs seem to be relatively resilient financially, as long as they remain wealthy.  It's the middling suburbs that also have city-level services (wide streets, sidewalks, lighting, full sewer and water systems) plus all the extra school bussing, police, and fire coverage while not having the value and thus the tax base to pay for it all in the long term that are in the biggest trouble.  There's also things that aren't governmental like gas, electricity, telecom, and even things like mail and package delivery that are more expensive to provide in the suburbs, but which don't cost any more to the user despite all the extra piping, poles, and wires they require.

 

I think a really good local example of this would be Covington and Newport?  It seems they are having a lot of financial issues.  I think I read something around a year ago or so quoting the Covington Mayor or Police Chief saying they have a population of 40k but they need police and fire service like a major city.

 

Also, I believe I read somewhere as well, maybe from Aaron Renn, about Indianapolis and it's lack of sidewalks and streetlights.  The roads there are in pretty bad condition, too.  My girlfriend is finishing up her PT Doctorate there and they had a speaker come in to talk about how people there are less healthy than in a lot of other places becuase the walkability is so low in a lot of the city.  There are so many spots there without sidewalks it's crazy.

Indian Hill is an interesting beast because while it is very spread-out (1, 3, and 5 acre lots), it's also pretty low-service from an infrastructure standpoint.  The streets are mostly narrow, no curb and gutter, no stoplights, no sidewalks, virtually no streetlights, most but not all of the city has no sewers, and since it's all pretty high-value property, that allows taxes to be lower and funneled mostly to the school system.  Wealthy suburbs seem to be relatively resilient financially, as long as they remain wealthy.  It's the middling suburbs that also have city-level services (wide streets, sidewalks, lighting, full sewer and water systems) plus all the extra school bussing, police, and fire coverage while not having the value and thus the tax base to pay for it all in the long term that are in the biggest trouble.  There's also things that aren't governmental like gas, electricity, telecom, and even things like mail and package delivery that are more expensive to provide in the suburbs, but which don't cost any more to the user despite all the extra piping, poles, and wires they require.

 

I think a really good local example of this would be Covington and Newport?  It seems they are having a lot of financial issues.  I think I read something around a year ago or so quoting the Covington Mayor or Police Chief saying they have a population of 40k but they need police and fire service like a major city.

 

 

Could Covington and Newport de-annex their bulldozed and semi-rural areas and turn that stuff over to the county?

Yes, CAUV taxes have through the roof under Kasich. His policy people spotted raising those as a source of revenue since farmers in Ohio were doing really well from 2007-2011. Immediately after the bill passed weather began screwing Ohio farmers then low crop prices hit. So as farmers' revenue tanked their taxes went up!

 

I hate being in the awkward position of defending Kasich, but on this one, the big increases have nothing to do with him or his henchmen -- nor are they bringing in new dollars. I believe the higher local property taxes paid by farmers will be offset locally to the benefit of other property owners in the same jurisdiction. The current situation is a combination of the regular revaluation process in the counties and high commodity prices in recent years.

So when Trump's gone is Kasich annointed appointed VP so as to prep him for 2020?  Or does it go to Jeb Bush?  Or Billy Bush?

I wasn't quite sure where to put this--mods please move if you know of a better thread (perhaps worthy of a new one).

When Red Statehouses Overrule Blue City Halls

 

It’s no secret that the gulf between the social values of cities and the state governments that control them has been widening a long time. Cities skew Democratic, while in 25 states Republicans control both houses and the governorship. But with a Republican stranglehold over the federal government as well, the battle over preemption laws is heating up. A new report by the National League of Cities tallies which states have passed laws to restrict cities’ autonomy, and looks at how cities might fight back.

 

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/when-red-statehouses-overrule-blue-city-halls-preemtive-laws

I wasn't quite sure where to put this--mods please move if you know of a better thread (perhaps worthy of a new one).

When Red Statehouses Overrule Blue City Halls

 

It’s no secret that the gulf between the social values of cities and the state governments that control them has been widening a long time. Cities skew Democratic, while in 25 states Republicans control both houses and the governorship. But with a Republican stranglehold over the federal government as well, the battle over preemption laws is heating up. A new report by the National League of Cities tallies which states have passed laws to restrict cities’ autonomy, and looks at how cities might fight back.

 

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/when-red-statehouses-overrule-blue-city-halls-preemtive-laws

 

Typically, preemption serves the same role the Supreme Court serves nationally, restraining governments from laws which impinge on residents or businesses.  They rarely seem to be "you shall" laws (aimed at cities), more often "you shall not".

 

The laws against "sanctuary cities" make sense because the illegal aliens impact state services and neighboring communities.

So when Trump's gone is Kasich annointed appointed VP so as to prep him for 2020?  Or does it go to Jeb Bush?  Or Billy Bush?

 

I guess we'll know here shortly. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket/index.html

 

Kasich is using Hickenlooper to look cosmically more moderate than he is.  Plus, Hickenlooper was central to the light rail/commuter rail plans in Denver.  Not sure how they'd resolve that. 

Putting his aside his motivations for appearing more moderate, if more Republicans were acting like Kasich right now we would probably be better off as a country.

I was a big Kasich supporter for presidency last year. He would have been relief from who we have now. I just cant see him winning. Maybe if an independent can catch steam, but you figure the clown shows on the right and left will pretty much control the messaging and air time making it hard for a moderate to create a message that will resonate on a third party platform.

Kasich is still trying to sneak in to the White Office:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/07/07/john-kasich-says-donald-trump-having-meltdown/5392247002/

^Good article. This may be crazy, but could the GOP not nominate Trump at its convention? Has either party ever had a surprise nomination like that?