Would Bernie be defeated in a landslide?

[OSR stands with Israel]

He would lose everything but Vermont and DC.

I wish but the Republicans would need to win 66% of the vote to make that happen

[OSR stands with Israel]

Rubio or Kasich would win a decisive win, not a landslide as the country is too polarizing for anyone to win 400+electoral votes

Kasich vs Sanders

Kasich 345 56%
Sanders 193 43%


Sanders vs Rubio

Rubio  326  53%
Sanders 212 46%

[OSR stands with Israel]

It would be fairly normal.

He'd have locked-down the usual... New England, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and probably Pennsylvania.

He's have a little more of a fight in the swing states than Hillary or Biden, but those would still be winnable.

I think Kasich can take Oregon if Kasich as I believe If Republicans win 55% of the popular vote Oregon falls to the GOP

[OSR stands with Israel]

292: Sen. Ted Cruz(R-TX)/Sen. Joni Ernst(R-IA) - 53.1%
246: Sen. Bernie Sanders(D-VT)/Rep. Andre Carson(D-IN) - 45.2%
000: Other - 1.6%

That's Sanders' ceiling.

LOL

This map could have been Kennedy vs Ford 1976

[OSR stands with Israel]

There are no landslides anymore. Landslides of 1964, 72 and 84 happened because swing voters made up 20% at least of the electorate. Today it is no more than 10%. Karl Rove said that George McGovern if he ran in 2004 would do no worse than 47% versus the 38% he got in 1972.

I believe McGovern vs Bush would in 2004 would end like this

Bush 384
McGovern 154

[OSR stands with Israel]

Did anyone in this thread define what "landslide" means. For me, old fashioned that I am, I define landslide as at least a 3-2 margin. Using the electoral college percentages as the metric is creating a "landslide" by virtue of chopping the pie into pieces, and handing them out based on a bare majority as to allocating each one. That is just silly in my book. So anyway, by my definition, the answer is no, Bernie will not be losing by a landslide if nominated. Almost nobody does at the POTUS level.

That definition would rule out the Eisenhower elections of the 1950s, elections in which Ike got over 400 electoral votes but 'only' 55% or so of the popular vote. Ike won both Massachusetts and Minnesota together -- twice -- something that no Republican has since done. It also rules out the 49-state Reagan win of 1984 because Reagan got just less than 59% of the popular vote.  3:2 means literally 60-40, achieved by FDR in 1936, LBJ in 1964, and Nixon in 1972.  

It fails to recognize the two trouncings of incumbent Presidents Hoover in 1932  (57-39) and Carter in 1980 (51-41 with 7% to third-party nominees).

Correct. Landslides are very rare. Just find another word, that does not do violence to the chosen word. You know, like decisive margin, or a double digit margin, or something. Double digit margin has the rather decisive advantage, in that it actually has arithmetic precision. What a concept!

Wikipedia page of Landslide Victory uses the map of the 1984 election and Reagan didnt win by 20 points : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landslide_victory