Bernie Sanders vs Jeb Bush (and other GOP candidates)

[Rockefeller GOP]

[IceSpear]

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.

It appears that Atlas is going to become the left wing version of the Daily Paul. Who knew a 5,000 person rally and trailing by 10+ points in a New Hampshire primary could inspire such confidence?

[Abraham Reagan]

Could go any number of ways. Like Sanders chances to turn out more disengaged voters than he scares off swing voters against another Bush. I'd bet on Sanders to win.

This. Bernie Sanders could inspire people who have been discouraged by ineffective government.

Who's another Bush going to inspire?

So you think a relatively unknown (until recently) Senator from Vermont who has been in Washington for nearly 25 years can really hit the ineffective government card hard, but not a governor of a large state who turned things around and fixed inefficient systems for the better?

[WVdemocrat]

Could go any number of ways. Like Sanders chances to turn out more disengaged voters than he scares off swing voters against another Bush. I'd bet on Sanders to win.

This. Bernie Sanders could inspire people who have been discouraged by ineffective government.

Who's another Bush going to inspire?

So you think a relatively unknown (until recently) Senator from Vermont who has been in Washington for nearly 25 years can really hit the ineffective government card hard, but not a governor of a large state who turned things around and fixed inefficient systems for the better?

What matters is policy. Sanders talks about reviving the middle class and expanding opportunity, while Bush is a typical "business as usual" politician. And not to mention, he's a Bush.

His brother isn't exactly the most popular guy in the world.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

How exactly is an old white man who has spent decades as a Washington insider going to appeal to disaffected voters?

Let alone when you toss in the fact that he's a socialist, Sanders would be screwed either way.

[WVdemocrat]

How exactly is an old white man who has spent decades as a Washington insider going to appeal to disaffected voters?

Let alone when you toss in the fact that he's a socialist, Sanders would be screwed either way.

It's all about policy. Bernie talks of radical change, Bush talks of the status quo. That type of reformist rhetoric is appealing.

But, you're right, Bernie would immediately be on the defensive. Obviously. However, the debates would be to his advantage. He is a very good debater. And so, he could present his policies in a down-to-earth manner as opposed to the red baiting in Bush's attack ads.

All I'm saying is that campaigns are unpredictable, complex things. Who knows what could happen during the campaign. It's anybody's guess.

[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

[JonathanSwift]

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.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii: Close Jeb wins
California, Washington: Close Bernie wins

Cruz vs. Sanders:

[Higgs]

Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii: Close Jeb wins
California, Washington: Close Bernie wins

How does Jeb win Hawaii?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii: Close Jeb wins
California, Washington: Close Bernie wins

How does Jeb win Hawaii?

I get the sense that Hawaii's voters are extraordinarily elastic (and, remember the favorite son effect with Obama).

[Vega]

Delaware, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii: Close Jeb wins
California, Washington: Close Bernie wins

How does Jeb win Hawaii?

I get the sense that Hawaii's voters are extraordinarily elastic (and, remember the favorite son effect with Obama).

No, they're not. They have an ever so slight incumbency-bias, but they're not elastic. A Republican winning HI in 2016 isn't possible or plausible. 

[SWE]

A socialist will not be perceived as a moderate by American voters.

Not clear what this has to do with his electability but ok

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

A socialist will not be perceived as a moderate by American voters.

Not clear what this has to do with his electability but ok

It's in response to those who think that Sanders can win over undecided or disaffected voters.

[WVdemocrat]

A socialist will not be perceived as a moderate by American voters.

Not clear what this has to do with his electability but ok

It's in response to those who think that Sanders can win over undecided or disaffected voters.

Economic populism is alive and well in America. If by "disaffected" voters you mean moderate centrist swing voters, then that's not what I meant at all.

I mean the kind of people who have really given up hope in the political system. The kind of people who are jaded and cynical about government. Those are the kinds of people I think Sanders could appeal to. Nobody can say Bernie Sanders would be a "business as usual" president.

[King]

Sanders as an icon is more toxic than Obama with no minority drive to boot. Even if by some miracle he hit 270 EVs, he'd probably lose the popular vote so bad due to ceding 70% of the vote in every GOP state, that the GOP would have a veto proof majority over him and he would accidentally go down as the most conservative administration in history, as he helplessly watched the Ryan Budget and privatization of Medicare/SS go down with no ability to stop it.

[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.

[Mr. Illini]

Against generic R