Electoral Map Sanders vs. Trump – Looks Like a Landslide
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:
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 hasnt 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 couldnt possibly lose to Trump, including VT, HI, WA, OR, IL, RI, DC, NV, CO, and NM. Im including NV, CO, and NM here because they are Western states with large Hispanic populations, which cant stand Trump for obvious reasons. These states that Sanders couldnt 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?
Clintons 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 well be taking if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
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.
But the HRC minions just prefer to gloss over that...
And she did not win it fair and square. Besides, it's not over until it's over.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 conclusion is inescapable
It's simply irrefutable
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.
Maybe she's actually been working for Trump this whole time.
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.
Thank goodness...millions of Democratic votes have ensured it won't happen. I am with her.
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.
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.
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?
No doubt they would try all that stuff, but it wouldn't stick. They'd make themselves look stupid and desperate.