Electoral Map Sanders vs. Trump – Looks Like a Landslide

[Time for change]

There are two different maps that look at a general election between Sanders and Trump. One includes only states that have been polled, and considers solid leads (10 points or more) and leaning leads (5-10 points). The other map extrapolates from that to allocate un-polled states based on how the state voted in 2012.

The map that considers only polled states looks like a landslide for Sanders:
http://www.270towin.com/polling-maps/sanders-trump-electoral-map

Sanders leads in those states by an electoral count of 237 to 13. Only 13 EC votes in the Sanders column are “leaning” leads (5-10 points), the other 224 being solid (10 or greater). On that map, Sanders has solid leads in NH, NY, MA, NJ, PA, MD, VA, NC, MI, WI, MN, CA, AZ, UT (total of 224 EC votes) and “leaning” leads in IA and CT (13 EC votes). Trump has leads only in LA and WV (both solid Republican bastions in the past 4 presidential election, with a total of 13 EC votes). Sanders’ lead in Utah is especially striking because Utah hasn’t voted Republican in a Presidential election since 1968 – but Trump is very unpopular in the West. Keep in mind that these numbers of 237 (total) or 224 (solid) EC votes for Sanders do NOT include several states which he couldn’t possibly lose to Trump, including VT, HI, WA, OR, IL, RI, DC, NV, CO, and NM. I’m including NV, CO, and NM here because they are Western states with large Hispanic populations, which can’t stand Trump for obvious reasons. These states that Sanders couldn’t possibly lose to Trump add up to 73 more EC votes, to give him a total of 297 solid EC votes, which is plenty enough to win. Too close to call states (<5 point leads) include MO, GA, SC, FL, IN, OH (total 93 EC votes).

The other map, which extrapolates by adding un-polled states based on 2012 results is somewhat more favorable to Trump, as it adds only 7 EC votes for Sanders from what I discussed above (DE and ME) and 128 for Trump. But many of those states are quite questionable for Trump, based on his very poor showing against Sanders in the polled states. It includes many Western states, where Trump is quite unpopular. Given that Sanders has a solid lead in Utah, it seems likely that he could pick off quite a few other traditionally Republican states in the West as well against Trump.


What about Clinton?

Clinton’s electoral map against Trump shows a likely win, but it is substantially weaker than the Sanders electoral map. Worse yet, her popularity has been decreasing lately, so that her net favorability ratings are now at negative 19% - almost 30 points lower than Sanders at +9.7%.

Maybe one reason for that is the recent strong-armed despicable abuse of power demonstrated by Clinton surrogates at the NV State Convention. Videos of the events there are circulating widely, apparently effectively combatting the biased “news” media reports that omit the many abuses of power by Clinton surrogates and talk only about false reports of “violence” by Sanders delegates. I guess our “news” media, as well as the Democratic Party, considers loud and angry protests against the theft of our democracy to be the equivalent of violence.

And now polls for head to head competition against Trump show Trump with an actual lead (though a statistical dead heat) against Clinton. That is not a single poll, but an average of several recent polls (He leads in three recent polls and trails in two). What a terrible risk we’ll be taking if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

[The Wielding Truth]

3. Things could change at the convention. There is an opening for major change.

[Time for change]

9. The party is likely to collapse if Clinton is the nominee

[Time for change]

13. It will not rise. The way that Bernie is being fucked over by the Democratic Party, it can only

decline.

Fair and square? Massive voter purging; abuse of power caught on video at NV state convention; numerous electronic "glitches" favoring Clinton; fake audits when the machine count doesn't match the hand count; Consistent large deviations between exit polls and official counts, where Clinton somehow miraculously consistently outperforms what the exit polls tell us, and yet there are no audits done; massive efforts by the Democratic Party to ruin Bernie's reputation. Don't insult us all about not "losing well". I care a lot more about the loss of our democracy than "losing well".

We see what that's doing with Clinton's negative 19 net favorability ratings and her now running even in head to head competition against Trump -- favorability ratings for both of them that are virtually unheard of for major party nominees.

[Yurovsky]

24. We don't coronate potential felons either...

But the HRC minions just prefer to gloss over that...

[Duval]

16. Sorry, but I believe the posts above and below you are correct.

And she did not win it fair and square. Besides, it's not over until it's over.

[Time for change]

30. By rules, bullshit

Taking over a convention, making their own new rules, ruling in their favor when it's obvious that the new rules were voted against. Purging delegates at whim. If you think they follow rules your an idiot.

[rjsquirrel]

37. Very slowly now: who won the vote in Nevada? S

And WTF are you on about?


If Nevada, a few jerky Sanders suported a tried to game the system to pickup a couple of extra delegates. They had already lost the primary. The delegates they hoped to pick up weren't going to make Bernie the winner or make any difference to his losing campaign.


Wherever you get you information, it's all lies and bullshit.

[Time for change]

38. Hundreds of Clinton delegates didn't show up at the county convention or flipped to Bernie

Tell me why you think they did that?

Bernie gamed the system? Clinton delegates didn't show or flipped their vote, and that's gaming the system?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that the Clinton delegates realized that there was something very wrong with the vote in NV, so they couldn't in good conscience continue to support her. So I would say that Bernie won it.

[The Wielding Truth]

12. It's hard to recognize our Democratic Party when it is bought by the 1%.

How can we call our system democratic when we have a poorly informed electorate and a fascist in the lead of a strained two party right leaning election. How are the rest of us going to be heard and represented if things remain status quo or if trump and all the right wing nutters claim everything.

Really Hillary is fine but she is not in a spot where she can stand unblemished against a pure con man.
Sanders has the backing of those who's eyes are wide open to the corruption that has taken our country to this state of Idiocracy.

How many independents (80% of republicans who are ashamed to be republican)would actually switch to Bernie to avoid their distaste of all things Clinton? More than I thought when I started mentioning Sanders in conversations.
Hey, this is not personal. I can see that Hillary would be the only way if not for the crazy FOX viewpoint of our country and the decay that has been cultured since the super rich have forgotten that they are Americans first.

[Time for change]

19. I think there needs to be some polling done to determine what a 3 way race between Trump, Clinton,

and Sanders would look like.

The Democratic Party has essentially said fuck you to the American people. I don't think that we can afford to let them get away with that, because if we do they will keep on moving in the same direction (to the right) until there is little or no distinction between them and the Republican Party.

If 3 way polling says that Bernie is likely to win (and what else would one expect when we have two candidates around -20 in net favorability ratings and one at +10?), I think he should go with that. Otherwise I see things getting worse for a long time to come before it gets better, or maybe our civilization will collapse and we'll be back in the Dark Ages.

[The Wielding Truth]

23. Yep. Things look quite dire.

[Fumesucker]

2. Winning with Bernie is worse for them than losing with Hillary

The conclusion is inescapable

It's simply irrefutable

[Fumesucker]

11. Eh, I'm writing in Walken because of course..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Oh, well. At least the party bosses will be happy.

[pdsimdars]

5. And DWS can chalk up another big loss onto her staggering pile of losses for the democrats.

So, whenever they say, "but we can't risk Trump as President."

All we have to do is totally agree. And HILLARY is a risk.

[cui bono]

8. Well, you know, she does support Republicans.

Maybe she's actually been working for Trump this whole time.

.

[Time for change]

14. Yes. It looks to me like

the Democratic Party would rather have a Trump presidency than have Bernie get the nomination.

That being the case, they have a lot of nerve to plead for party unity, especially given their dictatorial methods, massive voter purging, trashing Bernie over what happened at the state convention, and demanding that he apologize for the "violence" that didn't occur there, etc.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Time for change.

[Alex4Martinez]

20. KnR

[Demsrule86]

21. It would be a landslide for Trump

Thank goodness...millions of Democratic votes have ensured it won't happen. I am with her.

[Time for change]

22. That's a statement with no basis if I've ever heard one

Did you note the electoral map. Trump wins LA and WV, wow! Not much of a landslide, but I'll be he wins a few other states as well, like MS, AL, AR, SC, TX, and maybe a couple of western states.

[Time for change]

32. Because Bernie isn't beholding to Wall Street and other special interests because he doesn't take

campaign contributions from them. So his goal is to represent the people of this country. Those whose campaigns rely on wealthy special interest money are beholding to those special interests. Most people know that. It's a shame that you don't.

[rjsquirrel]

36. The hilarious part

is that people believe that bulllshit.

[Time for change]

39. The ridiculous part is that

some people are so naive that they actually believe that candidates who take $$$$$$$$$$$$$ from special interests won't pay them back at the expense of everyone else once they get elected. You can't really believe that, do you?

[amborin]

33. Wow! So you are rooting for a president Trump! Just, Wow!

[anotherproletariat]

34. Here is some basis for that statement:

Too Easy: How Republicans Would Tear Apart an Unvetted Bernie Sanders in the General Election

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/19/this-ends-now-the-bernie-sanders-opposition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release

[Time for change]

40. That's bullshit

No doubt they would try all that stuff, but it wouldn't stick. They'd make themselves look stupid and desperate.

[NewImproved Deal]

29. Bernie can beat Trump (handily)--the Former First Lady can not...

[amborin]

31. K&R

[silvershadow]

35. k&R nt