Bernie Sanders best-case EV scenario: 112 Sanders - 423 any Republican

[jmowreader]

Bernie Sanders will motivate millions of people who've never voted before in their lives to register to vote AGAINST him. More importantly, his platform of tax after tax, government intrusion into the private sector and unattainable pipe dreams will flip a lot of heretofore solidly blue states. Washington comes to mind quickly: everything from the summit of Mount Rainier to the Idaho state line is redder than Alabama. Always remember Reagan won 49 states in 1984 after he raised taxes three times and got 241 Marines killed in Beirut.

So...my best-case scenario for a Sanders-Trump, Cruz, Carson or Rubio race is:

Sanders:
California: 55 ev
Hawaii: 4 ev
Illinois: 20 ev
Massachusetts: 11 ev
New York: 29 ev
Vermont: 3 ev
Total is 112. The Republican takes the rest.

Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen: With the possible exception of Hawaii, which is very solidly Democratic, and Vermont, who's been sending Sanders to Congress for two decades, there's not a safe state in the fifty. There's a good chance Sanders could receive 62 ev (California, Hawaii and Vermont) and an outside chance he gets three (his home state).

The American Way of Life can't afford Bernie Sanders in the general election.

[yeoman6987]

1. I know this isn't serious but at least add Minnesota

Come on!

[jmowreader]

2. I had a hard time adding Illinois

I think Bernie Sanders will put Washington and Oregon - iow Seattle and Portland - into the GOP column. Why would I think Minnesota will go our way?

[yeoman6987]

3. I was thinking because they didn't go for Reagan the only state

[GusBob]

4. Bernie Mondale

Vermont only

[Gothmog]

5. If you are unable to finance a campaign, guess what happens

[jmowreader]

18. "Unwilling" is the word I'd use

Boxing yourself into a corner by refusing large-dollar donors is not good in a campaign that's probably going to cost EACH general election candidate a billion dollars.

[Gothmog]

23. Sanders is bringing knife to gunfight

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.

I would love to see someone explain how Sanders would be viable because the explanations that I have seen so far have been sad and weak.

[jmowreader]

24. More like a butter knife to a nuclear exchange

[Gothmog]

25. The Kochs would bury Sanders with negative ads and he could not fight back

[jmowreader]

27. They'd dump a lot of negative ads on Hillary too

The difference is, Hillary has a track record of turning negativity back on her attackers.

[Gothmog]

28. As if the GOP has not been doing this for years

There is nothing new to attack her on but there are some great things to attack Sanders on. His health care plan is unworkable and would raise taxes by over $15 trillion dollars. The terms "socialist" and "socialism" poll badly now and would be radioactive after $300 million of negative ads
From Pew http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/

The word ‘socialism’ triggers a negative reaction for most Americans, but certainly not for all. Six-in-ten (60%) people say they have a negative reaction to the word, while just 31% have a positive reaction. Those numbers are little changed from April 2010....

By contrast, socialism is a far more divisive word, with wide differences of opinion along racial, generational, socioeconomic and political lines. Fully nine-in-ten conservative Republicans (90%) view socialism negatively, while nearly six-in-ten liberal Democrats (59%) react positively. Low-income Americans are twice as likely as higher-income Americans to offer a positive assessment of socialism (43% among those with incomes under $30,000, 22% among those earning $75,000 or more).

From Gallop http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/Socialism-Viewed-Positively-Americans.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.



....Socialism

Socialism had the lowest percentage positive rating and the highest negative rating of any term tested. Still, more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.

Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.

There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:

A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives

[hueymahl]

6. I'm curious as to the methodology you are using

It is contrary to the polls I have seen and my understanding of modern demographics. Not saying you are wrong, really trying to educate myself on this, and your analysis does not jive with my current understanding.

[jmowreader]

9. Polls and demographics don't account for odiousness

Oh man...it is early and my fingers ain't workin'...I shall persevere...

Let's skip over the fact the GOP is going to do everything in their power to paint Sanders as a commie. If you go to Bernie Underground you will learn being a socialist isn't a problem anymore because it's not 1950 anymore. Well...kids, "socialist" might not be a problem in New York City, but out here in the 3ev to 10ev states, it is a HUGE problem. I could get in my little yellow car, drive to either of the high schools in town, and find ten NObama bumper stickers in the student parking lot. These kids aren't even old enough to vote, and they're against Obama.

Bernie Sanders is running on a platform that can be boiled down to three major planks: I am going to raise your taxes by a LOT, I am going to nationalize or shut down a very large amount of the American economy, and I am going to propose a lot of shit that wouldn't go through Congress no matter how Democrat-heavy it is.

First, taxes. Out here in the hinterlands, tax increases don't sell. In the West we run our schools via supplemental levies. Every two years these have to be renewed at the ballot box. Idaho code allows a school district whose levy fails to advertise for three months the cuts they're going to have to make if the levy stays failed, and then have a revote. About half the districts out here need to do this. My sister is the accountant for a school district in the middle of the state; she reports more people voted against their last levy - which was at the same millage as the previous one, so they were just reauthorizing the same tax level - than voted in the last gubernatorial election. (Incidentally, the levy passed.) People will come out to vote against new taxes, and they'll do it in record numbers. In 2012 they came out to vote against Obama on the theory he was going to raise your taxes, even though it wasn't the focus of his campaign. Sanders is going to pile 'em on, and he has no qualms about telling you which ones they'll be.

Second, the private sector. The only possible way Bernie Sanders can produce a healthcare plan that eliminates deductibles and copays, or that includes dental coverage with the same conditions, is to take over the healthcare industry. Flat out. If his model is the British NHS, he has to go all the way...and turn doctors and nurses into government employees. He's talking about breaking up banks...okay, he's REAL sketchy on the details, like "how is it constitutional to do this?" but that's his plan. People will necessarily and correctly think, "if Sanders is willing to take over and break up THAT business, who's to say he won't do the same thing to the one I work for?"

The third one: Bernie Underground loves that Sanders will "fight for us." No one except the hardcore Sanders fan or the hardcore Trump fan wants someone who will "fight" for us. They want someone who will WORK for us, and get things done. His $15 per hour minimum wage is a nonstarter. It is a doubling - well, MORE than double - of the minimum wage in four years. If you dump an edict like that on the employers of America, they're going to respond in one of two ways: by firing people to return their payroll expenditures to what it was pre-Sanders, or they'll follow Sea-Tac, Washington's lead and add a "living wage surcharge" to their bills. (I spent one night in Sea-Tac earlier this month. My receipt from the hotel has "living wage surcharge" on it, bigger'n life.)

I tend not to believe polls anyway. Thanks to the invention of Caller ID, telephonic polls are almost as bad as Internet polls now...you pick up people who are either so much in love with something they want the whole world to know, or so pissed off with something they want to get rid of it.

Our choices in this election are people who are promising incremental change, and people (read: Sanders and Trump) who want to wad up the whole system and start over. If the wadders are running against each other, this guy...

will most likely win..."I'm gonna throw all the Muslims out of the country" sounds more fun than "I'm going to raise your taxes and kill your job." The incrementalist Hillary Clinton, OTOH, can beat both the wadder Trump and any of the incrementalist Republicans.

[hueymahl]

11. Appreciate the detailed response

I'm going to have to think hard about your points. Not sure I agree with all your assumptions, but I don't want to go off at the mouth until I have thought it through.

Thanks again.

[Treant]

7. A bit unfair, I think.

I can easily get him to 250 or so just by people loathing the Republicans.

Heck, Pennsylvania voted for Kerry without any qualms. We could choke it down for Bernie long enough to pull the lever.

[jmowreader]

10. Kerry has ties to Pennsylvania

He's married to the widow of one of the most beloved senators in Pennsylvania's history.

[Treant]

12. That's certainly true.

We were also a pretty strong Gore voter, and haven't voted Republican since Papa Bush.

I still think PA's more Leans Dem than "take a feint at it swing state."

Bernie would have to screw up so badly to lose PA that the game would already have been over long before that. It would involve getting exactly zero of the swing states and the weakest of the Democratic states.

[okasha]

29. Bernie's problem is that he has already screwed up badly.

He has no traction in any demographic group except white males. His reflexive attacks on PP and HRC--have solidified women and LGBT's support for Hillary. His "walk back" is way too little, way to late. The BLM incident still resonates with people of color, as do his er--exagerations--about marching with MLK.

Those things aren't going to change.

[Treant]

31. I certainly hope so!

I went from dislike to extreme dislike post this comment of his and the Dick Cheney comparison.

I've had Bernites try to tell me that "establishment" isn't an insult and he's always voted for PP. Possibly true, but he seems to have a problem with not writing off people and organizations who aren't completely with him, so I doubt he'd fight that much for them.

Over at the big LBGT blog I read, opinions are about fifty-fifty for each candidate--for the audience tilt, that's a weak response for Sanders.

[SunSeeker]

8. Of course. That is why Republicans have been holding fire on Bernie.

And unleashing hell on Hillary.

The GOP's only hope to get in the White House is a Sanders nomination.

[wysi]

13. As somebody else wrote recently...

... the GOP can't wait to break out the hammer and sickle to use against Bernie, and at that point it's goodnight.

[SunSeeker]

14. Yep. And us being able to say "I told you so" will be little comfort. nt

[LeatherSofa]

15. That's a possible, if not likely, scenario.

I am glad I found this place. GDP is really a depressing forum to visit. Keep the faith.

[Dems2002]

16. A different perspective

So, I'm from the state of California, which you aptly put in Bernie's column. My job over the past fifteen years give/take has been to convince people to raise their own taxes for local services. There are a few places where this has been a bit of a slog, but all told, I have a 90% success rate.

At the same time, as the Tea Party has risen so too has the "No tax" sentiment taken hold in certain enclaves throughout the country. You clearly live in one and there are other places I've read about in the past few years where towns have voted down local measures that would secure their own quality water and fire protection. Basic services. Idiots.

Be that as it may, based on my knowledge of campaigns and elections, I will reiterate what I've said since Bernie jumped into the race...he's more electable than Hillary.

What you've got to do is look at issue based polling across the country. And what Bernie is saying aligns with the belief systems of not only progressive democrats, but also, in many instances, a majority of republicans. And he crushes it with independents.

Have you seen the polling breakdown in New Hampshire? Until recently Hillary was beating Bernie amongst Democrats. The reason it was close and/or Bernie was slightly ahead is because Bernie was crushing Hillary amongst Independents.

My uncle is an 86-year-old gun loving republican. He's in Nevada. There is no way in hell he'd even consider voting for Hillary. But he's thinking about Bernie. He's your classic Reagan Democrat. He's a retired union electrician and the union served him well. But a lot of the building trade guys are republicans.

Years ago I read Wellstone's book. And his book cited the exit polls. A majority of those polled said that Wellstone was more liberal than they were. But of that majority, over half of them voted for him anyway. Because they trusted him.

Bernie is winning on the trust issue across the board. He's the only current candidate with net favorables. Can this withstand the scorched earth campaign republicans and their billionaire backers are likely to run? Great question.

But Bernie is proving his own fundraising bonafides. His supporters are going to give until it hurts and then they are likely to give some more. It hurts me to know how much some folks are willing to go without to support him and the possibilities that he offers.

So far, this cycle is proving true what has happened for him in the past. When his opponent attacks him he gets stronger. It's crazy, but so far, that's been a key point of success.

While I would never think of putting Idaho in his column, I actually think Bernie could run strong in some western states. Because he talks sense and doesn't beat around the bush. Can he lose? Of course. But I'm more worried about Hillary losing and not just losing but ruining the chances the Dem Party has down the ballot because she's not going to net us the extra 1-2% turnout that Obama did in 2008 that led to us winning closer elections down the ballot. Bernie will get us those extra couple of percentage points.

[jmowreader]

17. Bernie's fundraising style is a huge problem

The GOP's current frontrunner is a billionaire who's gone bankrupt four times. The rest of the candidates are backed by Koch money and dark money. The world hasn't changed; if he really wants to be president Bernie Sanders will have to match GOP spending dollar-for-dollar, which means SuperPACs, 529s and all the rest of the seamy underside of financing a large-scale political campaign. And that's a massive problem for Sanders. If he refuses megadonor money he gets buried in an avalanche of negative ads and loses the election. If he accepts it he gets branded as a flip-flopper and loses the election.

One of Clinton's advantages is Boy who Cried Wolf Syndrome: the GOP has heaped so much shit on the Clintons, the general population is all "yeah, right motherfucker; that was proven to be bullshit the last six times you said it."

The problem with the "trust" talking point Sanders supporters like to use is, people are more likely to trust a used-car salesman than a politician. If trustworthiness was a requisite for electing politicians, Congress would be empty.

[Dems2002]

19. He'll raise enough to be competitive

Let's see. Bush spent $50 million. And basically should have gone to Vegas and had a good time. The money didn't make so much as a dent in the polls.

The billionaires are actually pretty pissed off at how little impact their giant wads of cash have had swaying certain elections.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15001252-money-cant-buy-happiness-or-an-election

Also, while money seems to have a disproportionate impact when you look at all the races, when you factor in that most aren't competitive at all and simply compare races with a 10% margin or less, you find that 40% of races are won by the candidate with less money and that the Super PAC spending doesn't change these numbers.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-wins/

In terms of Bernie, he's raised over $70 million so far. Obama got a huge surge of cash after he won Iowa. I'd expect the same for Bernie if it comes to pass and then some. How many people have given to Bernie and even dreamed he could win? More checkbooks will be opening that's for sure.

While some of Hillary's Wall Street supporters aren't going to be writing checks to him anytime soon, I suspect he can get a lot of the Hollywood types to do so.

I'd say he should be able to raise about $200 million. I know his consultant and they've spent their money a lot more wisely than Clinton. So I'd say this would be the equivalent of about $350 for her. Of course, this is without PAC money. And I don't expect the DNC to lift a finger for him. So can $200 million beat $1 billion?

I guess we'll see. I do not expect him to agree to a Super PAC. It's too antithetical. But I expect the best social media campaign in politics. And there's a lot to be said for the dollar amount of his volunteer base. I'd honestly put his volunteer base at a solid $100 million in added value as long as the campaign continues to keep their guiding but hands off approach.

Is it enough? Again, we will see. But I think it can be. Because Bernie is Bernie. He is grumpy. He is an old white man. And that's the beauty of him following Obama and all of the shit the GOP has tossed onto Obama. They've actually helped Bernie by calling Obama a socialist over the past seven years!

My Tea Party cousin can't imagine anyone to the left of Obama. He thinks Obama is a communist.

One of the great things about Bernie is that he doesn't go off message. He is resolute. This bores the press and his relationship with the press is probably one of my biggest concerns, but that's going to be true of anyone who threatens the status quo. I do wish he was friendlier, but maybe he should start talking to them about their former unions and job securities that reporters have lost over the years. I know that's where I'd try to take them. He's not going to win the hearts and minds of the rich national press reporters, but there are a lot of smaller guys that he might be able to really speak with and to.

[Cha]

20. No BS is Not more Electable than Hillary. Hillary is going to be POTUS. This is Hillary's Group

and it's for members who support her.

Bernie's the Loser.

If you come back you will be Blocked.

[Dems2002]

21. Didn't realize different rules

I typically just read the Greatest pages and rarely find myself in the groups thread. I didn't realize the different rules. I probably won't post again. But I honestly wasn't trying to bash Hillary so much as I was trying to alleviate a fear based on what seemed to me emotional rather than analytical information. I understand that none of us want to end up with a Republican President, so my hope was to reassure that IF Bernie were to win the Primary, it wouldn't be as dire as some of you fear.

Peace. See you on the other side of the primary.

[Cha]

22. I'm not worrying about him in the GE at all because it ain't gonna happen.

[Iliyah]

26. GOPers are very shaddy people and will do anything, I mean anything to win.

These so called Christians are the devil

[Treant]

32. Are we sure? :-)

They like him as an Independent but he's now drunk the Kool-Aid and re-registered Democrat.

Honestly, I'm not sure he keeps his Senate seat after this, but that may be his plan. Win the Presidency or retire.

[Hekate]

33. KnR