Would Bernie be defeated in a landslide?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Sanders, of course, is a capitalist.

[/]

Capitalism and socialism don't directly oppose each other (you can have both of them at the same time); I don't get why nobody understands that.

[°Leprechaun]

Capitalism and socialism don't directly oppose each other (you can have both of them at the same time); I don't get why nobody understands that.

I agree with you. I don't see un-checked capitalism as a good thing. In many places money represents the oppression of the poor by the rich. It is utterly ridiculous that in many places a person can get fired and lose their life support without cause. It is possible some places to fire someone without a good reason. This should change. Their is no job security and this makes employees slaves to their employers.

[SWE]

Capitalism and socialism don't directly oppose each other (you can have both of them at the same time); I don't get why nobody understands that.

[screams internally]

[Ogre Mage]

It depends on who his Republican opponent is.  The chance of Sanders losing in a landslide is certainly greater than it would be for a typical Democratic Presidential nominee but in this era of highly polarized politics I wouldn't say that it is a given.

[Torie]

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.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

No, he'd lose, but the voting electorate is becoming increasingly hyper partisan and "moderate" voters don't vote as much.

[pbrower2a]

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).

[Col. Roosevelt]

A landslide for the sake of this thread means Obama's 2008 victory margins or similar since that's as close to an actual landslide as we'll get in modern times.

[Pyro]

This thread makes me want to take a bath with my toaster, but this is just sig-worthy.

Capitalism and socialism don't directly oppose each other (you can have both of them at the same time); I don't get why nobody understands that.

[Jerseyrules]

Conservative turnout would be through the roof if Sanders wins the nomination.

people don't (generally) turn out against candidates. conservative turnout might be high against sanders if the candidate is donald trump or cruz, but it won't be if the candidate is kasich or ¿yeb?

I don't think people here understand that being a self-proclaimed Socialist will convince almost everyone who is even remotely conservative to rush to the polls.

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.

Oh, but it can old sport....

[Torie]

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!

[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).

[Clark Kent]

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.

3-2 margin? That's almost a 20% margin. I usually think more like around a 10% margin to be considered a landslide, so post-WWII, only Ike '52, Ike '56, LBJ '64, Nixon '72, and Reagan '84 qualify. Reagan '80 comes very close, but misses out by .26%. It's close enough that I usually consider it to be a landslide, too.

[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

[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).