Would Bernie be defeated in a landslide?

[DS0816]

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.

This map is hilarious.

Part of what is hilarious is the fact that Kingpoleon fails to recognize that every presidential candidate who carried the four instrumental states of the Rust Belt—Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—won those elections. (This includes a 2008 Barack Obama.)

For an eight-point Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote, which is a national shift of around 12 percentage points, that's a sh**tty result for the Cruz/Ernst ticket.

And let us not forget that Indiana was a 2012 Republican pickup for the party's losing nominee, Mitt Romney. A 2016 Republican pickup of the presidency would not boast an Electoral College map in which any 2012 Republican-carried state flips the 2016 Democratic column.

[DS0816]

please. conservative demonisation of sanders literally can't get worse than conservative demonisation of obama, and you can ask president romney where all that high conservative turnout got him.

let's not forget that it was already an article of faith among most conservatives that obama is a socialist.

This is the point that nobody seems to understand. Conservatives have inoculated Sanders against the accusation that he's a socialist. So does the fact that he embraces the term. They call him a socialist, he says, "OK, fine, let's talk about policies," rather than spluttering about arguing over what epithet he should be called.

For a lot of people, both Republicans and Democrats, they act like it's 1975 rather than 2015.

They're stuck way in the past.

[DS0816]

Bernie Sanders v. Dr. Ben Carson

snip

Interesting analysis but anti-keystone Sanders is going to lose Montana and North Dakota. In fact I think the idea of him winning North Dakota is laughable.

Such a tragedy!

[DS0816]

please. conservative demonisation of sanders literally can't get worse than conservative demonisation of obama, and you can ask president romney where all that high conservative turnout got him.

let's not forget that it was already an article of faith among most conservatives that obama is a socialist.

This is the point that nobody seems to understand. Conservatives have inoculated Sanders against the accusation that he's a socialist. So does the fact that he embraces the term. They call him a socialist, he says, "OK, fine, let's talk about policies," rather than spluttering about arguing over what epithet he should be called.

You guys are 100% correct.  If you ask the average Fox News devotee whether Bill Clinton, Obama, and Carter are socialists they will say yes.  The word "socialist" has been so over used and abused by the far right that it has been drained of its power.  Bernie's rise is a testament to that.

Plus Bernie has something no other viable candidate has... credibility.  When he is on the stump he is the most genuine person out there that has a shot of winning the nomination.

How many of these same people thought that same-sex marriage would never happen nationally in the United States?

And that thought so, say, in 2012 (or maybe even 2013)?

[DS0816]

Landslide?

Look to that as a presidential winner having carried four of every five states on average.

No estimates allowed.

40 of the participating 50 states for electing a presidential winner.

Electoral-vote score would obviously be over 400 (and, potentially, above 450).

[DS0816]

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

The percentage-points margin doesn't tell enough.

A 2008 Barack Obama had a similar national margin to a 1988 George Bush … and, with that, 12 fewer states and 61 fewer electoral votes.

People should just go by amount (and percentage) of carried states.

Then again…that *s* didn't stop 43rd president George W. Bush, with his laughably anemic electoral-vote scores, from claiming a "mandate" (and the corrupt Corporate News Media from backing him).