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 ?