Most likely best case vs worse case scenario

[Extrabase500]

Realisticaly what is the best case scenario for the Dems in 2016 and the best for the Republicans? Post maps of both.

Best for Democrats

Best for Republicans

[The Other Castro]

Best for Democrats:

Clinton - 383 EV
Trump - 155 EV

Best for Republicans:

Rubio - 287 EV
Clinton - 251 EV

[OSR stands with Israel]

Best Case for Republicans

Kasich/Rubio 353
Sanders/ Warren 185

Best Case for Democrats

Clinton/ Warner 399
Cruz/ Trump 139

[RINO Tom]

Republican best case, IMO:

Democrats best case, IMO:

[Extrabase500]

No way would Trump or Cruz lose Missouri, Arizona, Indiana, Georgia, or Montana. Even if it was Clinton Vs Cruz and Cruz totally imploded he would still win all of those states but maybe Georgia (and thats being really generous!). Also I don't think the Democrats will lose New Mexico under any circumstance theirs too many Hispanics.

I agree with Toms map minus Missouri going for the Democrats and I also think the Republicans have a strong shot in Nevada.

[Kingpoleon]

353: Gov. John Kasich(R-OH)/Gov. Susanna Martinez(R-NM) - 53.1%
185: Sen. Bernie Sanders(D-VT)/Gov. Gina Raimondo(D-RI) - 45.2%

358: Fmr. Sen. Hillary Clinton(D-NY)/Rep. André Carson(D-IN) - 53.1%
180: Sen. Ted Cruz(R-TX)/Sen. Thom Tillis(R-NC) - 45.2%

[Maxwell]

I also think Donald Trump is not even close to the Republican's worst potential candidate.

[Mister Mets]

Best case for Democrats assumes favorable economic circumstances, a strong campaign and a weak Republican ticket.

Hillary Clinton/ Cory Booker- 396 Electoral Votes
Donald Trump/ Joni Ernst- 142 Electoral Votes

Best case for Republicans assumes a strong ticket, economic troubles, and the Hillary Clinton campaign facing significant problems.

Marco Rubio/ Nikki Haley- 353 Electoral Votes
Hillary Clinton/ Julian Castro- 185 Electoral Votes

Doing better than that requires unlikely best case/ worst case scenarios (Hillary Clinton getting indicted, a Republican nominee calling Obama the n-word on an open mic.)

[Higgs]

Realisticaly what is the best case scenario for the Dems in 2016 and the best for the Republicans? Post maps of both.

Best for Democrats

Best for Republicans

In the Republicans BEST case scenario they can't even win Iowa?

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Looking at some of these Republican "best case" scenarios you'd think it was 2000.

New Mexico is safe D. Nevada is lean D. Michigan is lean D.

[RI]

Why does everyone think Clinton even has a shot at Indiana?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Realistic best case for the GOP.

Noting trends that for the Dems to lose WI/PA, the GOP would have to have won the PV by at least 3 points, if not 4% - so this result would have these states line-ball and have a GOP 51-47 national PV win.



Realistic worst case scenario for the GOP

This requires maximum AA turnout and a GOP candidate so off-putting that they lose a points with white voters and gain it with no-one. But since MO is in the D column, and awful lot has to go right for the Dems and badly for the GOP.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Why does everyone think Clinton even has a shot at Indiana?

Why the hyperbole?

Anyhoo, Obama 2008 was a fluke. Considering the electoral whiplash that took place... it won't happen for any Democrat, unless the GOP feels like committing electoral suicide.

[Extrabase500]

Realistic best case for the GOP.

Noting trends that for the Dems to lose WI/PA, the GOP would have to have won the PV by at least 3 points, if not 4% - so this result would have these states line-ball and have a GOP 51-47 national PV win.



Realistic worst case scenario for the GOP

This requires maximum AA turnout and a GOP candidate so off-putting that they lose a points with white voters and gain it with no-one. But since MO is in the D column, and awful lot has to go right for the Dems and badly for the GOP.

I agree with your list but Clinton (likely Dem) would have to fail massively/have massive problems.

[I support Sanders]

The Republicans' best case scenario would have them narrowly win the electoral college 281-257, winning Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, and Nevada. This would likely come about with a Kasich/Rubio or Rubio/Kasich ticket: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/av2kw.png

The Democrats' best case scenario would be a 422-116 landslide, with Florida, Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and North Carolina going blue. This would likely happen if Trump/Cruz was the Republican ticket, scaring minority voters to come out in massive numbers to vote for either Clinton, Sanders, or O'Malley: http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/MwOp9.png

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Best Case GOP: 408-130

Best Case DEM: 375-163

[Extrabase500]

Best Case GOP: 408-130

They discovered Hillary was a serial killer LOL

[Pyro]

Realistic best case for the GOP.

Noting trends that for the Dems to lose WI/PA, the GOP would have to have won the PV by at least 3 points, if not 4% - so this result would have these states line-ball and have a GOP 51-47 national PV win.



Realistic worst case scenario for the GOP

This requires maximum AA turnout and a GOP candidate so off-putting that they lose a points with white voters and gain it with no-one. But since MO is in the D column, and awful lot has to go right for the Dems and badly for the GOP.

This is pretty spot on.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Republican Best Case:

Democratic Best Case:

[Clark Kent]

The best case scenario for either party is a 50-state landslide, with the Democrats having a slightly better best-case scenario than the GOP because of Washington, D.C.

That being said, the most realistic best case scenarios for the parties, in my opinion:

For the Democrats:

For the Republicans:

[Figueira]

Why would Vermont flip before Massachusetts? It isn't the 1970s anymore.

EDIT: Oh, I get it. You're assuming an independent Sanders, but how is that a realistic scenario at all?

[/]

I love how the GOP can just never reach 400...

[Mister Mets]

Why does everyone think Clinton even has a shot at Indiana?

This is the best case scenario.

However, Obama did win in 2008.

Joe Donnelly defeated Richard Mourdoch in the 2012 Senate election, so it is a state where a dumb Republican can lose to a competent Democrat.

[Clark Kent]

Why would Vermont flip before Massachusetts? It isn't the 1970s anymore.

EDIT: Oh, I get it. You're assuming an independent Sanders, but how is that a realistic scenario at all?

Actually, I wasn't assuming an independent Sanders at all, but remember that this would be a landslide, Vermont is much more elastic than Massachusetts, and the state has traditionally been very Republican, so that should be at least a tiny factor. Plus, Obama did very well in Vermont compared to Clinton, so I'd expect her to do at least a bit worse.

[DS0816]

Indiana and Missouri are on the same level with 2008 and 2012—their largest spread was 1.16 percent, from 2008, when Barack Obama flipped Indiana by D+1.03 but John McCain held Missouri by R+0.13.

A Democrat would have to win nationally at a minimum in high single digits, like 8 percentage points.

In 2008, my home state Michigan was D+16.44. Compared to neighbor Indiana, the spread was 15.41 percentage points. In some other elections, the spread between the two states has been close to 20 percentage points. Comparing raw-vote margins, their 2008 spread was approximately 795,000 raw votes.

Indiana wasn’t a fluke in 2008. The state proved to be winnable for Democrats if they win largely enough nationwide (and in neighbor state Michigan).