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

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

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

This. I think he'd lose NC, NV and maybe CO, and not come close in AZ/GA/TX, but that he'd be comfortably ahead in PA/MI and close in IA, and leading in OH.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think that as things went on, Sanders' description of himself as a "democratic socialist" would have come back to haunt him.  I think, in this case, the Johnson-Weld ticket would be doing better if Sanders, rather than Clinton, were the Democratic nominee, as "free market" issues would be more important.

[OneJ]

Sanders probably won't do much better, maybe worse, than Hillary in my opinion.

First of all, I have trouble with understanding how he could possibly win Alaska. Can anyone explain that to me?

Second of all, the word "socialist" would not play very well. Republicans will scrutinize him to death with this. They'll possibly tie the word "socialist" with "communist". Since far too many young voters can't tell the difference between (GOP conspiracy theories and truths about Hillary), they might develop some skepticism of backing Bernie and will still consider the attention grabber Stein.

Next, he'll likely do worse in the south than our good friend Hillary. Republicans will viciously attack him. Black voters, who mostly supported Hillary and prefer someone closer to Obama's policies, are likely to become less inspired to vote. Turnout could likely be lower.

Then, take a look at the battleground states. IA would probably trend R anyway due to Trump. OH may also do so for the same reason because Trump is like a Viagra pill for the poorly educated (whites). NC is hard to say because the bathroom bill is currently affecting the state, but think about it turning to Bernie. Michigan really isn't competitive, neither is Minnesota nor Nevada. The battleground states of Georgia and Arizona would be out of reach. Florida could go either way. Some Minorities may not feel inspired (in spite of Trump).

That's my take on it.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Sanders would be clobbering Trump in the Northeast and upper Midwest but Trump would compensate by racking up wins in the upper South where Bernie is simply too 'out-there'. Trump could have won with just Florida, or by tying the EC by winning Nevada and Pennsylvania.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

And what about folks who seem to believe Hillary is some sort of an impregnable political genius?

I don't know about final result of what is a very hypotetical scenario. My gut feeling is Sanders doing somewhat better than Hillary is doing now overall (though certainly worse in the South), but it wouldn't be a blowout.

[Erc]

Needs to be mentioned, yet again, that in the event Sanders won the nomination on his own rights (as opposed to Hillary dying or being indicted), that Bloomberg almost certainly would have run as an independent, and the dynamics of the race would be entirely different as a result.

[Shadows]

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

This. I think he'd lose NC, NV and maybe CO, and not come close in AZ/GA/TX, but that he'd be comfortably ahead in PA/MI and close in IA, and leading in OH.

If I had to chose 2 states Sanders would do much better it would be NC & CO. Colorado was a closed primary where Sanders got almost 40% with Super Tuesday where his campaign barely had any traction after the absolute drubbing in SC. That was his best result in the country among registered Democrats by far.

NC was a state with a little more of Black Population % as Virginia & he got around 10% more of the black vote in NC. Sanders won the white vote, swept the millennial vote there to get a strong 42-43-44% in a state which he should have done way worse.

NV was a state where Sanders won the white & hispanic vote according to exit polls (or almost tied) at a very early time with low traction.

In all these states, he would have the support of the Black vote in a GE meaning he only needs to do better among whites & hispanics combined than Clinton (That could come with higher enthusiasm, millennial turnout or general better performance due to his honesty).


@ The Topic - I think he will be comfortably ahead by 7-8% points maybe not the 12-15% odd in some polls. Sanders has a +25 odd Favor-ability Nationality despite plenty of attacks & hit jobs by the Clinton machine & newspapers, Senators, House members. Clinton is at -10 odd. Obama is at like +5 or something maybe despite being attacked as much as Clinton was IMO.

I think it is time to admit that Clinton was a flawed, seemingly dishonest & has way too much baggage. Anyone would do better than her. Sanders has a 87% Favorability in Vermont & the 2nd most popular Senator is at 69%. Nationally he has the best rating too. I think it is fair to say the most popular Senator will have a strong showing.

Remember in the GE, he will have the entire Black vote with him not again him!

[Shadows]

Bloomberg would have no future. He would never has the 15% consistently to be in the debate. And worse the time at which he would have seriously decided to run would be too late to get into the ballot in some states. He would have given up.

Bloomberg has no campaign, no infra, no DNC or RNC to build a ground game. He would be doing way worse than Nader. I don't think he would be doing even 0.5%. He may take some votes from the RNC but Democrats would back Sanders considering Social Issues & the Supreme Court as Bloomberg certainly is a spoiler

[Erc]

Bloomberg would have no future. He would never has the 15% consistently to be in the debate. And worse the time at which he would have seriously decided to run would be too late to get into the ballot in some states. He would have given up.

Bloomberg has no campaign, no infra, no DNC or RNC to build a ground game. He would be doing way worse than Nader. I don't think he would be doing even 0.5%. He may take some votes from the RNC but Democrats would back Sanders considering Social Issues & the Supreme Court as Bloomberg certainly is a spoiler

Recall that Bloomberg dropped his pseudo-candidacy in early March, after it became obvious that Clinton was going to win the nomination (apologies to the voters of Michigan).  In a world where Sanders wins the nomination, he would have had to have done better on March 1, and in that world Bloomberg would have had well over two months to get onto the ballot even in the earliest states.

He also would have been willing to spend well over a billion in liquid assets on the campaign (unlike a certain other candidate, who neither has that much nor would be willing to spend it, instead hijacking the RNC to do so).  That sort of money buys you a campaign, buys you ads, buys you media attention.

Whether it would have taken off is another question...his natural base (well-educated white voters) may not be enough to build a successful campaign off of.  At the very least, I feel he'd do at least as well as Anderson '80, however.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm with Jonathan Chait in being bullish on Bloomberg in a Bloomberg-Sanders-Trump scenario:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-bloomberg-could-run-for-president-and-win.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Gustaf]

Sanders would be doing poorly.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

A few points better than Clinton, if only because she is a historically poor candidate.