Just for conversations sake, lets say 75 year old Sanders wins the 2016 Election...

[jeff47]

159. Same with Clinton.

Supposedly Clinton's victories in NY senate demonstrate she can run a good campaign.

Problem is Republicans can't win any statewide races in NY anymore. To be "acceptable" in the Republican parts of the state, you have to be "unacceptable" to the vast majority of the state.

So if you're going to complain that Sanders's elections in VT don't count, the same goes for Clinton - Almost any (D) would win against Lazio in 2000. And an incumbent Democrat in 2006's anti-Republican election didn't exactly face a challenge. Especially in NY.

The only challenging election Clinton has faced is 2008. And that went spectacularly poorly - she blew a 30 point lead. Obama's good, but he's not that good. Clinton's campaign lost 2008 just as much as Obama's campaign won it.

Can Sanders win a general? If he can be the "change" candidate, he'd rekindle a lot of what Obama used in 2008 and more recently Warren has used to rocket into power. Given his politics, his ability to do that more-or-less comes down to getting the word out. The media currently ignoring him doesn't help, but that can change quickly if his grassroots efforts start jacking up his polling numbers.

But I have equal concerns about Clinton in a general election. She isn't going to be able to crank up turnout like Obama '08 or theoretically Sanders can - the country is reacting very well to "change" candidates. If a sane Republican can get through the primary, Clinton would make it a close election. The electoral college deck is stacked enough that "close" will probably be good enough, but I'd rather see her pull off a good primary campaign first instead of being the anointed one.