--Donald Trump, Twitter, May 4, 2016
"I knew--everybody knew--that this was not a fair deal... Bernie really had a movement out there, and it wasn’t right to treat him that way."
--Harry Reid (D-Nev), Senate Minority Leader, "Harry Reid On Bernie And The DNC: ‘Everybody Knew That This Was Not A Fair Deal’," Huffington Post, July 27, 2016
Still more evidence: At U.S. Uncut, there is an interesting and detailed state-by-state analysis of some key general election states, with comparative electoral college maps, indicating that Sanders probably would have beaten Trump. ("If anyone doubts Bernie Sanders would've crushed Trump, show them this").
The Delusion That Clinton Was More Electable Than Sanders
Many Clinton supporters keep saying, "Clinton had more votes than Sanders during the primaries!" But they consistently fail to understand what Steve Benen of MSNBC pointed out back in April: "there’s another key consideration that often gets overlooked: the kind of primary or caucus has a big effect on the outcome. More specifically, the question to keep in mind is whether the nominating contest is 'closed' (only Democrats can participate) or 'open' (anyone can help choose the Democratic nominee). It’s surprising just how much this matters. In closed contests, Clinton tends to have more success, while in open contests, Sanders, Congress’ longest-serving independent, has consistent enjoyed an advantage."
Sanders was far more popular with Independents than Clinton; and when you consider (a) that more and more Americans are shunning party politics (see the Gallup poll, "Democratic, Republican Identification Near Historical Lows"), and (b) that Independents were shut out of many Democratic Party competitions, well, we have yet another piece of evidence that Sanders would have won the general election.
Bernie Sanders supporters (including myself) kept yelling, "People don't like Clinton! She represents the establishment in an anti-establishment national mood! Sanders is polling better in head-to-head match-ups with every Republican! Sanders is polling better in terms of favorability! The Democratic Establishment is rigging the primaries!" To all of this, the pundits, the Democratic Party elites, the pro-Clinton celebrities, and others replied: "Sanders is not electable. Sanders can't get things done. You're misogynistic little children who don't understand politics. There's nothing wrong with the Democratic Party laundering campaign money for Clinton, to avoid donation limits, and you're a bad person for bringing it up."
Frustration For Us, Hubris For Them
Make no mistake about it, Clinton's hubris, and her lust for prestige, put Trump in the White House. And it's quite possible that it will also make Sarah Palin (or someone very much like her) Secretary of the Interior, in charge of our national parks & forests. Such a placement would be a tragedy, likely undoing over a hundred years of national park development; fundamentally changing our national park system - a system that is the envy of the world and loved by tens of millions of Americans. You better believe that the Koch brothers are drooling over a Sarah Palin appointment as Secretary of the Interior: "Yes!" they're probably salivating, "The national parks are ours, not the people's! Why? Because we have the money!"
Take a look at the popular votes for the Democratic Party candidates Obama and Clinton over the past three presidential elections:
2008: Obama - 69,498,516
2012: Obama - 65,915,795
2016: Clinton - 60,828,358
The Democratic Establishment, backed by Wall Street and the mainstream media, has been hemorrhaging millions of votes each year. And yet these various entities are still plodding on with their failed corporate strategy & mindset--even after the Democratic Party's loss of all three branches of government (and even after the loss of 1,000 other political offices over the past several years). Yes, they're wondering if Chuck Schumer, the corporate Democrat, can save the party; and wondering if Tim Kaine, the Wall Street darling, can be the new Democrat leader; and grooming another Clinton for high political office; and, once again, preparing for the next "first woman president."
Special Note (so I'm not labeled a misogynist): I'd love to see a woman president... as long as she's a true progressive, and not a corporate "progressive"; but the truth is, I really don't care. Give me a sexless, self-fertilizing Martian, who fights hard for the working class, and I'll vote for him, or her, or whatever.
First: Americans elected a black president with a Muslim-sounding name in 2008 - only a few years after being attacked by Muslim extremists (9/11).
Second: "Millennials have a higher opinion of socialism than of capitalism" (Washington Post).
Third: The "Majority of Democrats say socialism has 'positive impact'" (Politico).
Fourth: Since Sanders had the overwhelming support of Independents, we can probably deduce that most Independents don't have a problem with Bernie Sanders'-style socialism which, truth be told, is more "let's-enhance-social-programs-for-the-common-good" than it is anti-capitalism.
And Fifth: Republicans call every Democrat a socialist. For heaven's sake, they hammered away at Obama for being a Marxist, Muslim, Kenyan-born Anti-Christ, and Americans still elected him! Twice!!
In sum, the notion that Sanders was not electable because Republicans would call him a socialist, or a Marxist, is complete nonsense. Many Democratic voters psyched themselves out over this overblown "issue" - falling prey to their own self-fulfilling prophecy.