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

[jeff47]

160. Clinton gives them a horse race.

At least, 2008 Clinton would. We haven't seen enough of her 2016 campaign to know if she's running like 2008 or using a different strategy.

The electoral map is already set for 406 electoral votes. There are 257 electoral votes in the solidly "blue" states. There are 149 electoral votes in the solidly "red" states. Those votes aren't going to change barring something spectacular, and thus very unlikely.

For the Democrat to win, they need 1 large swing state or 2 small swing states. For the Republican to win, they need all 11 swing states, and they need to turn a "blue" state. That's really damn hard, and the main reason why the Republican race is a clown car - the sane people know this one is unlikely to go their way.

So how does the Democrat pull it off? Win VA. Get big turnout in the DC suburbs, and the Democrat is over 270 electoral votes. Or win CO + IA. Again, big urban turnout overwhelms rural turnout and you're over 270 electoral votes.

The way to crank up Democratic turnout is to be a "change" candidate. It's what Obama did in 2008. It's what's behind Warren's sudden rise to power. And it's extremely easy for Sanders to tap into, if he can get the word out about his positions.

That's going to be hard for Clinton to do. That long centrist track record is going to make it hard for her to credibly run as a "change" candidate. She either has to do a whole lot of "I was wrong", or she has to jettison that track record. Neither one is a particularly strong strategy. So it's going to be harder for Clinton to get the high urban turnout she needs to win several swing states.

At the same time, Clinton derangement is gonna drive Republican turnout through the roof, making it even harder to overwhelm via turnout. Yes, Republicans hate socialism, but all Democrats are socialists to them. They hate all Democrats, but Clinton is Satan incarnate to them.

So the route for Republican victory in 2016 is to get a sane Republican nominated, get Clinton nominated, and then thwart efforts at creating high urban turnout. Their most likely point of failure is the first step. The last step will be the easiest. To counter this, Clinton would probably go after FL or OH, both of which are harder to win than a "change" candidate picking up a swing state via urban turnout.

Yes, Clinton is stomping the Republican nominees in current polling. They don't have a single candidate to unite behind, so they're fragmented. Look at how "the crazy" lined up behind Romney to see what will happen after they have a nominee.

The route for Republican victory in 2016 if Sanders or O'Malley is the nominee is harder, because it will be easier for those candidates to drive urban turnout, especially in the DC suburbs. Since the Democrat only has to win VA to win the whole thing, that's really important. Clinton won't do as well there due to anti-status-quo and Clinton fatigue.

So to summarize this giant post, 2016 is the Democratic candidate's race to lose. Clinton provides more routes to lose it than the other options. That doesn't mean she'll follow those routes, it just means there is less margin for error.