It's no secret that Trump's victory is centered around the 3 key swing states all of which are a part of the rust belt. Wisconsin, Michigan, and especially Pennsylvania all played a part in his quest to create a stunning upset. Had Sanders been the Democratic nominee, he could have more easily flipped Wisconsin and Michigan to his electoral column since he performed better than Clinton during the primaries in those two states. From a raw electoral vote standpoint it may well look like Sanders would've arguably been the better match to face off Trump but the caveat is that he's a severe underperformer in Pennsylvania when he had over a 200000 vote deficit during the primary in that state. Trump would've most likely had runaway margin in that state which would've been hard for Sanders to overcome ...

So while Sanders could have had a tighter grip on Wisconsin and Michigan, his path to victory is arguably narrower than Clinton's since Pennsylvania would've caused Sanders more issues in terms of getting voter support in that state ... 

It's bad enough that out of all the 3 rust belt swing states, Trump is comparatively the strongest with the one that has the most electoral votes out of the 3 but it get's even worse when you field a candidate that arguably struggles more in that state ... 

For all of Nate Silver's criticism of Clinton's weakness in the electoral college, Sanders had a fundamental weakness in the electoral college in that he had a glass ceiling figuratively speaking ... 

Can we please move on from the myth that Sanders would've beaten Trump now ? 

Or maybe you could stop being so clearly affected by people suggesting sanders would have won, resulting in you creating this thread where you claim that your speculation proves that Sanders potentially beating Trump is a myth.

What a great post to contribute in this thread ... 

Bern would have been owned, people want jobs not socialist bs.

Trump just said the right stuff at the right time. Bern would have also lacked the support from party and media that Clinton got.

Dem's rigged it for Clinton for a reason, Bernie just had no real shot.

A lot of people were registered as independent, and so they couldn't vote for Bernie Sanders even though they wanted to. Feel the bern.

just for the lulz

I just find it funny that Donald Trumps victory wasn't enough and that people feel the need to even go and defend the lord and saviour in hypothetical situations.

"We can't allow people to think Donald Trump would ever lose EVEN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS!!!!"

Then how do you explain why Clinton won more open primary contests compared to Sanders ? (13-10) 

Defensive and strawman much ? LOL ... 

Anways you can continue to shitting up my thread if you wish ... 

It would have been a better match: The two candidates for change when some massive percentage of Americans were sick of the establishment.

I reckon Bernie could have flogged Trump with the right messaging. Him winning would have probably resulted in economic catastrophe, but that's a whole other thread.

I also think Trump would have won against Sanders. He would have been much worse on the debates than Clinton and Repuiblican propaganda would have sunk him to the ground.

He wouldn't be McGovern-ed, but would still lose. Maybe the electoral map would have looked different though, like for instance Sanders taking Michigan, and Trump taking New Hampshire.