Sanders/Kucinich vs. Christie/Martinez

[IceSpear]

We've done something of a best case scenario for Dems (Clinton vs. Cruz), what about a best case scenario for Republicans?

Christie/Martinez - 386
Sanders/Kucinich - 152

[NewYorkExpress]

I think Sanders/Kucinch carries Vermont  D.C and maybe Hawaii on a good day...

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This is basically a moderate Republican vs. a particularly strong Green Party ticket. An unapologetic socialist cannot win big states, period.

[Mr. Illini]

I was very torn on Illinois, but when in doubt I assume this state's inelasticity and non-independent streak will win out.

386/152

[LeBron]

Even though I hate to say it, Christie/Martinez would win and possibly even in a landslide. This is Christie's ceiling though and I'm being pretty nice in giving this GOP slate a lot of these lean Democratic states knowing that Christie is becoming more and more toxic by day.

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ)/Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM) - 341 EVs
Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)/Fmr. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) - 197 EVs


Here's a narrow Sanders/Kucinich win:

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT)/Fmr. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) - 283 EVs
Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ)/Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM) - 255 EVs

[morgieb]

I think Sanders may hold on to some big states which will nullify the margin of victory somewhat, but yeah obviously the Republicans win in a walk against a glorified Greens ticket.

[ElectionsGuy]

Christie/Martinez: 388
Sanders/Kucinich: 150

Christie/Martinez: 56.5%
Sanders/Kucinich: 43.0%

[Cryptic]

Christie/Martinez - 386
Sanders/Kucinich - 152

This would be my map as well.  I think Sanders/Kucinich would keep some of the big D states due to polarization, but they would lose in a landslide. 

[MATTROSE94]

Christie/Martinez: 388
Sanders/Kucinich: 150

Christie/Martinez: 56.5%
Sanders/Kucinich: 43.0%

Pretty much this, with the exception of Connecticut and Delaware.

[morgieb]

I think Illinois could flip too. Remember Mark Kirk won there in 2010, and Sanders is probably worse than Gillaniouious (sp?)

Basically Christie would go pretty damn close to winning all states bar Vermont and DC. Sanders would still keep a few states but the result would look ugly for us sadly.

[IceSpear]

I think Illinois could flip too. Remember Mark Kirk won there in 2010, and Sanders is probably worse than Gillaniouious (sp?)

Basically Christie would go pretty damn close to winning all states bar Vermont and DC. Sanders would still keep a few states but the result would look ugly for us sadly.

I considered that, but in a presidential year rather than a midterm year turnout in Cook County would likely be much higher, so I think Sanders would very narrowly win there.

But at least he isn't corrupt like Giannoulias.

[Mr. Illini]

I think Illinois could flip too. Remember Mark Kirk won there in 2010, and Sanders is probably worse than Gillaniouious (sp?)

Basically Christie would go pretty damn close to winning all states bar Vermont and DC. Sanders would still keep a few states but the result would look ugly for us sadly.

It is definitely a possibility, but Chicago will not hold back, especially in a Presidential election. Chicago voters, like many big city voters but especially in a city with a Democrat tradition like Chicago's, are essentially Yellow Dog Democrats of the 21st century. They couldn't care less how unpopular the Democrat is or how popular the Republican is, they'll turn out every single election to give a gigantic margin to the Democrats.

That said, if the rest of the state turns out for the Republican, they can keep it close, but I don't think they would be able to offset the benefit a high-turnout Presidential election gives the Dems. I'd say Illinois would be a toss-up in this match-up.

Midwestern far-lefties would really like the Kucinich brand, too, so there's that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

A great ticket, although Sherrod Brown / Sanders would be better for electability reasons.

[MATTROSE94]

I think Illinois could flip too. Remember Mark Kirk won there in 2010, and Sanders is probably worse than Gillaniouious (sp?)

Basically Christie would go pretty damn close to winning all states bar Vermont and DC. Sanders would still keep a few states but the result would look ugly for us sadly.

It is definitely a possibility, but Chicago will not hold back, especially in a Presidential election. Chicago voters, like many big city voters but especially in a city with a Democrat tradition like Chicago's, are essentially Yellow Dog Democrats of the 21st century. They couldn't care less how unpopular the Democrat is or how popular the Republican is, they'll turn out every single election to give a gigantic margin to the Democrats.

That said, if the rest of the state turns out for the Republican, they can keep it close, but I don't think they would be able to offset the benefit a high-turnout Presidential election gives the Dems. I'd say Illinois would be a toss-up in this match-up.

Midwestern far-lefties would really like the Kucinich brand, too, so there's that.

Basically, the city of Chicago is the 21st Century equivalent of pre-1952 South Carolina and Mississippi in terms of support for the Democratic Party.