How would have Sanders fared in the G.E.?

[Senator-elect Spark]

With maps.

[ElectionsGuy]

He would probably be kicking Trump's ass.

[Heisenberg]

I have doubts that he would win (I don't even want to think of what a disaster having a socialist president would be).

[heatcharger]

Trump's fake populism wouldn't get him as far as it is right now with working-class whites in Iowa, Maine, and Ohio to name a few.

Although he'd have trouble turning out the "Obama coalition", aka African-Americans and Latinos, and he'd probably doing a bit worse with college-educated whites.

Also, Alaska and Montana would seriously be up for grabs. Sanders probably wins.

[nicholas.slaydon]

[Angel of Death]

You people forgot about Bloomberg's thinly veiled threat to run in the event of a Sanders nomination.

[Oakvale]

[Liberalrocks]

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Poorly.

[Xing]

About the same, though he might be doing a bit better in the Midwest, and a bit worse in the South.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

So, it's either "omg he'd be kicking Trump's ass" or "omg he'd get cremated"?

Love Atlas bipolarism.

[Pyro]

Same folks who laughed at the idea that Sanders could win any state outside of Vermont will make similar claims in regards to his theoretical performance in the general against Trump. Though we will never know for sure, I'm fairly confident that Sanders would have blown Trump out of the water in a fair landslide.

[Mallow]

Trump's fake populism wouldn't get him as far as it is right now with working-class whites in Iowa, Maine, and Ohio to name a few.

Although he'd have trouble turning out the "Obama coalition", aka African-Americans and Latinos, and he'd probably doing a bit worse with college-educated whites.

Also, Alaska and Montana would seriously be up for grabs. Sanders probably wins.

This looks pretty reasonable.

[Gass3268]

About the same, though he might be doing a bit better in the Midwest, and a bit worse in the South.

I agree with this, I think he'd be doing maybe a point or two better.

[Maxwell]

Probably better than Clinton, but worse than the over the top 15 point margins he was leading by early on. The gap would close due to the whole outsider thing no longer being an issue. In addition, a lot of typical Republicans who, thus far, have been apathetic towards Trump would be kissing the ring.

[Figueira]

Roughly the same as Clinton, with a chance of doing much better or worse.

I don't think Bloomberg would have actually run.

[KingSweden]

About the same, though he might be doing a bit better in the Midwest, and a bit worse in the South.

I agree with this, I think he'd be doing maybe a point or two better.

[Mr. Smith]

First Democrat to win without any Southern State.

About the same points wise, with NV, IA, OH, and ME-2 being traded with VA, FL, and most likely the one Romney-Clinton State, NC.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Poorly.

Any facts or citations to point to this, no? Just your gut feeling? Ok. Sanders would most likeily be leading in all the battleground states, he is at +20 with favorable's currently. Even if the net favorable did go down 10 he would still have to drop another 25 points to match Clinton.

[Hammy]

I think he'd be doing 2-3 points better. The non-white turnout would likely be the same--they aren't going to let Trump win under any circumstances if they can--and the millennial turnout would likely be higher.

[tmthforu94]

I generally agree with earlier posts - Trump would be doing a little better in the south and Sanders would be doing a little better in the midwest. Clinton was barraged with attacks for months, so I'm not quite sure it would be accurate to use Sanders head-to-head numbers during the primaries. He has a lot of far-left positions that Trump would nail him on, though I think he'd still be doing better than Hillary due to being perceived as honest and have integrity.

No tossup map:

[7,052,770]

I'm not sure who is more out of touch with reality -- the Cruz hacks who think that Cruz would be beating Hillary right now, or the Sanders hacks who think Sanders would be beating Trump right now.

[evergreenarbor]

266-77-195

[ProgressiveCanadian]

I'm not sure who is more out of touch with reality -- the Cruz hacks who think that Cruz would be beating Hillary right now, or the Sanders hacks who think Sanders would be beating Trump right now.

Or hacks who beleieve she was the most electable democrat to win? At least some on here have the decency to admit her flaws as a candidate. What ammunition would Trump have been able to use against Bernie, that he's a scary socialist? It didn't really work on Obama so scaring voters of someone much more liked then him would be a bad strategy on Trump's part.

[Gary J]

Larry Sanders, Senator Sanders elder brother, is the candidate of the Green Party of England and Wales in the Witney by-election (to fill the vacancy caused by David Cameron resigning his seat in the UK Parliament). The election is on 20 October, so we will see if any of the American brother's celebrity makes any difference. I suspect not, as the Greens will probably come 4th or 5th, in a safely Conservative rural and small town district of central England.

He is not the Sanders this thread is about and the voting is not in a US Presidential election, but it is an electoral test for a Sanders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37447086