There is not an ounce of evidence that 2016 will be a landslide election for HRC

[Virginiá]

Quite honestly I expect a virtual repeat of 2012 in the Presidential race, and 5-7 Senate seats for the Democrats, maybe un-doing the 2014 election in the House. This is my best-case scenario for Hillary.


Anyone who says there will be landslides in this hyper-polarized country is deluded. Most people will simply vote for "their guy", if not out of support, then out of dislike for the other candidate.

That seems like a fair expectation, though I would say that is my bottom-level performance for a Clinton v Trump election.

I just don't think it's fair to say that things are too polarized for a more lopsided win. Perhaps not much beyond a 10pt margin (which in the modern era I think would qualify as maybe a mini-landslide, relative to elections in the past generation). An electoral college landslide is probably out of the question, though. As far as downticket races, a wave could definitely form for Democrats but I don't think we'll know whether or not that will happen until much later this year.

My guess is no wave, but Trump is such a wildcard and has so many issues that it's possible under the right conditions.

[Virginiá]

Right now, I think it's 50/50 between a close 2012/2004 style race or a reverse 1972 with Trump winning <10 states and Hillary cracking 55% if not 60%.  Remember, Trump's on Trump's side and there is no telling what he will try in the general.  I do think he runs into trouble with his current speaking/debating style against Hillary.  It's just too easy to create a "madman beating up your grandma" narrative that would play right into her hands.  

When you say reverse-1972, do you mean for the presidential aspect, or also the other races? 1972 was, I forget the term used (I know there is one!), a "silent landslide" or something. Republicans only gained 12 seats, and lost 2 Senate seats, despite Nixon winning one of the largest landslides in history. I don't think it's possible these days to win that big and not bring with you a massive wave of downballot wins for your party, on account of the lack of ticket splitting these days.

I would have to say though, that if Hillary got even 54%+, it's hard to see that not flipping Congress entirely. Not to mention the disaster for Republicans in state races.

[Virginiá]

Guys, no one has run a serious ad campaign against Trump since he's gotten into the race because they're all scared to alienate his supporters.

Hillary will not hold back one bit and her campaign team will absolutely tear Trump to pieces over the air. Not to mention, Trump is going to have to spend a lot of political goodwill to earn the support of conservatives that loathe him almost as much as Hillary for his attacks on Cruz and his inconsistencies, as well as Bush style neoconservatives who consider him a national security threat. The Democratic race is much tamer, and Sanders will likely give his full throated endorsement to Hillary when he loses.

Trump might have a real shot if he can win the nomination by the end of March and if Sanders can drag out the race enough where it starts to get really nasty. He could consolidate the GOP in time in that situation, but if Cruz and Rubio can prevent Trump from winning it before the convention, it'll be  a McGovern/Goldwater repeat.

I think something people don't often think about is the money issue. Trump says he's self-funding, but does anyone really believe he will begin liquidating his assets to fuel his campaign? It will take many hundreds of millions, likely far beyond the amount of cash-on-hand he has. I can't see him doing this if he even remotely thinks he could lose. I get that he's been cheap in the primary probably to save money, seeing as he doesn't need to spend to win, but in the general election, he absolutely cannot win without pouring enormous money into the states.

Further, he can't depend on big dollar support from the GOP's usual donors. A lot may see him as a wasted investment, or simply despise him so much that they won't help. Plus, a lot of that money would go to Super PACs anyway, which are being seen as a complete failure this cycle, so that doesn't help either. And if he did take their money, he throws away one of the most powerful reasons people like him: He's self-funding and not beholden to any donors. He can't really run a successful small-donor campaign either, because he's made it clear he's super rich and super successful, and asking the pooooorrlllly educated for money would really undercut that narrative.

Every single thing here points to him running a cheap, hamstrung campaign that will cost him dearly on election day. Either that, or he takes lots of special interest money to keep his campaign above water, and people finally see him for the lying fraud he really is, and thus also pays dearly on election day.