Sanders vs Trump

[Da2017]

What would a general election between Trump and Sanders be like. Which states would Sanders win that Hillary did not?

[Bojack Horseman]

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What would a general election between Trump and Sanders be like. Which states would Sanders win that Hillary did not?

-MI, PA, WI.

[Dr. Arch]

What would a general election between Trump and Sanders be like. Which states would Sanders win that Hillary did not?

-MI, PA, WI.

ME-2, IA and AK come to mind too.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What would a general election between Trump and Sanders be like. Which states would Sanders win that Hillary did not?

-MI, PA, WI.

ME-2, IA and AK come to mind too.

IA and AK are squarely ridiculous. Otherwise, Bernie would have won the IA Caucus. ME-2 is less so, but Trump won that by 10 points. He would have narrowly won it had Sanders been the nominee.

[AGA]

Sanders: 279
Trump: 259

Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, and ME-02 would all be quite close.

[nicholas.slaydon]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[JA]

This is one of the most ridiculous maps I've seen on this forum. So we're supposed to believe that Sanders, who ran a solid campaign on economic populism, would underperform Clinton's "vote for me and my rich, well connected, holier than thou self unless you're an irredeemable deplorable redneck" campaign?

[Axel Foley]

Is it safe to assume that in such a scenario Bloomberg would have run on a platform based on being the reasonable candidate between two different kind of populism?

[Confused Democrat]

What would a general election between Trump and Sanders be like. Which states would Sanders win that Hillary did not?

-MI, PA, WI.

I agree with Eharding for once.

[Mr. Morden]

People have brought up this hypothetical many times before, but I still think Gillibrand vs. Trump or Warren vs. Trump are the more interesting hypotheticals.  How much of Clinton's struggles happened because she's a woman, and how much because of 20 years of baggage?

[AGA]

If Bloomberg runs and gets ~25% of the PV, maybe this map would happen. I'm assuming that he would take more from Democrats than Republicans.

[AtorBoltox]

If Bloomberg ran he'd get 5% of the vote at most. Surely this election proved that people really don't care how 'moderate' someone is when casting their vote?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

If Bloomberg ran he'd get 5% of the vote at most. Surely this election proved that people really don't care how 'moderate' someone is when casting their vote?

There was much ado about McMuffin here and he basically tied with Hillary with Trump getting over double either of their counts.  Bloomberg might get 10% tops.

[Beet]

After looking carefully at social media data from the NYT, I have a new conclusion:

Trump 298
Sanders 240

[JoshPA]

trump would have won because obama didnt do well enough in 2012 for any democrat to win in 2016.

[JoshPA]

bernie isnt going to do that well in the south sorry to burst you bubble.

[Bojack Horseman]

This is one of the most ridiculous maps I've seen on this forum. So we're supposed to believe that Sanders, who ran a solid campaign on economic populism, would underperform Clinton's "vote for me and my rich, well connected, holier than thou self unless you're an irredeemable deplorable redneck" campaign?

https://medium.com/@sashastone/ten-reasons-bernie-sanders-would-not-and-could-not-have-beaten-trump-b596674c1c93#.dmn3v12v9

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-was-on-the-2016-ballotand-he-underperformed_us_5852fbbce4b06ae7ec2a3cb7

From Newsweek:

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it — a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone reallyattacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Clinton's favorability rating dropped right after the email scandal and stayed there. Trump's was always below 40%. Sanders's just rose and rose and rose. Yes, he obviously would have won. Again, there were zero Hillary voters outside Appalachia who would not have voted for Bernie. There were enough people who would have voted for Bernie, but didn't vote for HRC, to cost Her the election. Tired of the Hillary hack nonsense.

[JustinTimeCuber]

lol

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

347 - 191

Not sure about NC, IA, OH, AZ, MT and AK, but they wouldn't have mattered anyway.

-There's not much reason to think Sanders would have had much credibility in IA and OH, but the rest are plausible.

[uti2]

After looking carefully at social media data from the NYT, I have a new conclusion:

Trump 298
Sanders 240

Which data?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Trump wins with different states. I think Bernie's far-left views would cause moderate Democrats in places like Virginia to stay home, allowing Trump to win Virginia by a 2-point margin. I can also see Nevada going Republican by a narrow margin, too. The Rust Belt could go either way, maybe Michigan flips Democrat while Wisconsin and Pennsylvania stay Republican.

I know there are a lot of Berniecrats on the internet, but his views are too extreme to be an electable politician on a national level in the United States. I've always seen him as a liberal Barry Goldwater, but that's just my observation.

-The "liberal Barry Goldwater" was McGovern. Barry Goldwater always got around 20% in the polls. Nowadays, Bernie is more popular than any Democrat. Think about that.

[uti2]

If Bloomberg runs and gets ~25% of the PV, maybe this map would happen. I'm assuming that he would take more from Democrats than Republicans.

If Bloomberg ran he'd get 5% of the vote at most. Surely this election proved that people really don't care how 'moderate' someone is when casting their vote?

There was much ado about McMuffin here and he basically tied with Hillary with Trump getting over double either of their counts.  Bloomberg might get 10% tops.

The Bloomberg argument really is a ridiculous cop-out, he never even had a real campaign or a real base of support. Trump, on the other hand, said before formally running and even during the primaries that he would run independent if he lost the primary, and he claimed that the pledge was in default.

So it's absurd that people want to bring up Bloomberg running independent in a race with Sanders, but want to avoid the issue of Trump running independent in a race with a non-Trump republican candidate. You don't need to spend that much when you are popular and get free media, Perot didn't spend much.