Bernie Sanders vs Jeb Bush (and other GOP candidates)

[dudeabides]

Jeb Bush (R) 62% 419 EV
Bernie Sanders (D) 37% 119 EV

Marco Rubio (R) 60% 419 EV
Bernie Sanders (D) 39% 119 EV

Scott Walker (R) 59% 399 EV
Bernie Sanders (D) 40% 139 EV

[dudeabides]

Lol you guys are delusional

Sanders is a self-proclaimed SOCIALIST (I know he actually isn't).

The GOP candidate would probably tie Sanders to the USSR (lol) and call him a far-left socialist lunatic and the GOP candidate would probably win by a landslide just by doing that.

Anyone who thinks that Bush would lose or get less than 320 EV's is either a huge troll or delusional as far as I'm concerned. Even my map is probably being too generous to Sanders.

I could also imagine fundraising being a huge problem for Sanders if he won the nomination. A lot of wealthy donors who supported Obama and other mainstream Democrats aren't going to support Sanders for very obvious reasons.

You guys remind me of the Paulbots back in 2012 who believed that Paul would actually defeat Obama if he had won the nomination.

I think of the three leading GOP candidates (Bush, Walker, Rubio) Bush and Rubio would get 419 EVs, but Bush would do better in the popular vote.

I see you are from IL; the reason I say Walker would lose Illinois to Sanders is because in a blue state like Illinois that neighbors the state Walker governs, his policies towards the unions would turn many off. Am I wrong?

I still think Walker would win in a landslide, with 399 EVs.

[dudeabides]

This is what a 57-41 GOP popular vote win looks like based on a uniform swing from 2012, with a few adjustments in the margins due to favorite-son effects.  This is Sanders' floor imo.  Also, note that a lot of the Dem states that flip to Republican are very close in this map.

EDIT: Forgot to report that that's a 418-120 GOP win.

There is no way Nevada, New Mexico, and Florida are close, especially with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio. In Florida, they have home advantage, but in all of them, they will do very well with hispanic voters. Bernie Sanders sought to defeat immigration reform in 2007, arguing it would lower wages for American workers. He isn't a big fan of a guest worker program.

Also, Pennsylvania and Ohio would not be that close, you can't be too far left or right to win in either state, and Sanders is very far left.

New Hampshire and Maine go for Democrats more often than Republicans, but the GOP has had some success in both over the last 23 years it has gone Democrat for President.

Virginia only votes Democrat now because of federal employees moving there. I think those federal employees, despite their somewhat progressive values, know that Bernie Sanders is not capable of being President.

While President Obama won comfortably in Oregon twice, President Bush was within 4 points of winning there in 2004, in a blue state.

Since 2008, for statewide offices, Wisconsin went Democratic twice (2008 and 2012 for President Obama, granted narrowly in 2012 for a blue state) but also Republican three times (2010, 2011, and 2014 with Ron Johnson & Scott Walker). With Wisconsin's Paul Ryan on the ticket in 2012, Mitt Romney reduced President Obama's margin of victory in Wisconsin from 14 points to 7 points over 2008, and President Bush lost Wisconsin by less than 1 percent in 2004.

Iowa is a state that has been good to both parties, but statewide, no one that far to the left, with the exception of President Obama who is still not as left as Bernie Sanders, has won that state.

I live in New Jersey. We have elected liberal Democrats, but not those who claimed to be socialists. Additionally, to be quite blunt, some Democrats in suburban communities would not vote for someone like Bernie Sanders who comes across as a nut, and we have a considerable Hispanic population.

Connecticut has a lot of wealthy people who are Democrats, but not socialists. 

[dudeabides]

Lol you guys are delusional

Sanders is a self-proclaimed SOCIALIST (I know he actually isn't).

The GOP candidate would probably tie Sanders to the USSR (lol) and call him a far-left socialist lunatic, and the GOP candidate would probably win by a landslide just by doing that.

Anyone who thinks that Bush would lose or get less than 320 EV's is either a huge troll or delusional as far as I'm concerned. Even my map is probably being too generous to Sanders.

I could also imagine fundraising being a huge problem for Sanders if he won the nomination. A lot of wealthy donors who supported Obama and other mainstream Democrats aren't going to support Sanders for very obvious reasons.

You guys remind me of the Paulbots back in 2012 who believed that Paul would actually defeat Obama if he had won the nomination.

This isn't 1972 or 1984 anymore. There are too many black and Hispanic voters (who aren't going to suddenly turn Republican just because the Republican candidate supports "immigration reform") for any Democrat to lose in a landslide. Honestly, even if Sanders were a complete train wreck on the campaign trail and even if the Republicans nominated the best possible ticket (i.e., one not featuring Jeb Bush), it's very hard to see Sanders doing any worse than, say, this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/25/this-is-a-massive-effort-to-attract-cheap-labor-why-sen-bernie-sanders-is-skeptical-of-guest-workers/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/04/jeb_bushs_speech_in_columbus_five_takeaways.html

[dudeabides]

Lol you guys are delusional

Sanders is a self-proclaimed SOCIALIST (I know he actually isn't).

The GOP candidate would probably tie Sanders to the USSR (lol) and call him a far-left socialist lunatic, and the GOP candidate would probably win by a landslide just by doing that.

Anyone who thinks that Bush would lose or get less than 320 EV's is either a huge troll or delusional as far as I'm concerned. Even my map is probably being too generous to Sanders.

I could also imagine fundraising being a huge problem for Sanders if he won the nomination. A lot of wealthy donors who supported Obama and other mainstream Democrats aren't going to support Sanders for very obvious reasons.

You guys remind me of the Paulbots back in 2012 who believed that Paul would actually defeat Obama if he had won the nomination.

This isn't 1972 or 1984 anymore. There are too many black and Hispanic voters (who aren't going to suddenly turn Republican just because the Republican candidate supports "immigration reform") for any Democrat to lose in a landslide. Honestly, even if Sanders were a complete train wreck on the campaign trail and even if the Republicans nominated the best possible ticket (i.e., one not featuring Jeb Bush), it's very hard to see Sanders doing any worse than, say, this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/25/this-is-a-massive-effort-to-attract-cheap-labor-why-sen-bernie-sanders-is-skeptical-of-guest-workers/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/04/jeb_bushs_speech_in_columbus_five_takeaways.html

Yeah, and regardless of that, Sanders would still win the Hispanic vote by double digits against Bush or any Republican, just like McGovern and Mondale did, and just like Dukakis did against Bush's father two years after the Reagan administration implemented amnesty.

The idea is to close the gap with hispanic voters; President Bush won 40% of the hispanic vote in 2004, Mitt Romney won just 27% in 2012. We have to close the gap.