« Bloom County is back! Is Donald Trump to credit? | Main | Uphill for the GOP, but not impossible »

August 02, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What about some of the other Republic candidates? How does Saunders fair? You're doing a good job of demonstrating why Walker is a bad idea against Saunders, but the others?

Here's the reason:

Sanders likely loses against Rubio, Bush or Kasich. If I'm bored, I might take out the hour to run that scenario. Basically, it's one where the Republican candidate gets back up to McCain's numbers among non-whites. In that world, the swing needed to beat Sanders is quite doable; almost easy.

Against the other plausible Republican candidates Sanders is even stronger than against Walker. None of them will attract nonwhite voters. Senator Paul might think he has a chance with his laudable stances on criminal justice, but he doesn't for three reasons. First, his former stance on the Civil Rights Act. Second, his dodgy associations. And third, the Democrats are busy matching him on that issue: he won't be running against Bill Clinton's stances from 1996.

So those scenarios are uninteresting.

Some of the implausible candidates might be interesting. How would Fiorina do against Sanders? I have absolutely no idea. What about Christie? God only knows. But for Fiorina to be matched up against Sanders in the general involves so many sixes being throw that I can't rouse myself to analyze it.

I know you're largely in the "Veep pix don't really matter" camp, but much influence would picking Fiorina (for women) and Carson or Jindal (minorities) have - if any! - on the votes.

The comments to this entry are closed.