Bernie would have won.

Rebuttal - Demographics Pro gives much too notice to the Millenial age group, in the source you provided (CNN's coverage of the 2012 election, see my rebuttals to your sources), the vote margin for Obama was only 10%. Pro seems to forget that there still exists an America of African-Americans, Asians, white-collar worker, the elder generation and the wealthy. Interesetingly enough, TIME wrote an article outlining the reason not to trust general election polls favouring Sanders against Republican candidates (see sources). Contrary to Pro's argument, Hillary Clinton only lost one percentage point to to Obama's 2012 re-election in the female vote. Yes, while a main aspect of Clinton's campaign was that she was running to become the first female President, 'Women' is a huge demographic and is still subject to almost the same biases.(see sources) Chuck Schumer's statement appeared correct pre-election, but now appears naive and foolish. This is understandable, as nearly every poll clearly showed Clinton leading Trump, that mentality appeared correct. After the results of the election, we saw a much different outcome to what nearly everyone expected. Using current evidence to discredit past claims does not pass as an accurate analyses, yes, you can show their falsity but not the attitude at the time. The claim that the key states of the election were the Rust Belt states is mostly false. False, because if Clinton had won Pennsylvania and Florida, she would have beaten Trump. Mostly, because Ohio, in the Rust Belt, is also a crucial state. Pro oversimplfies the scenario as saying that 'Bernie appealed to white working class and won voters in the critical states of the Rust Belt.' As I have mentioned before, Clinton won the Ohio primary (the state in the Rust Belt with most electoral votes) and Bernie lost significantly in New York, Florida and Illinois, essential states to the election. While Sanders may have won greatly in the Rust Belt, it is clear that if Clinton underperformed in essential states, he would have even more. Pro has stated that voters in the primaries are not far left and not moderate, and it correctly represents results in the general election. Not only is this proven false every single election,but if it were to be true, Clinton would have won in all three essential swing states (Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) and defeated Trump by a landslide, this clearly did not happen. Rebbutal - Strengths and Weaknesses Before I continue, I need to bring an important fact into this debate, Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton equally presented a populist message. Clinton's speeches did not change much from Sanders' speeches except on one factor, the establishment. Trump and Sanders' campaigns were focussed greatly on anti-establishment messages. Do you really think any candidate would have gotten so far without being a populist? Another point is that Sanders contradicted himself regularly during the campaign, how could you be able to lower taxes for the middle class and increase government income at the same time, without getting involved in other financial budgets. How could the USA, the sprawling, militaristic 'police of the world', 'destroyer of communism' and hub of finance become something similar to Finland or Sweden? Even the idea is utterly ridiculous. While universal healthcare is not an unwise goal to pursue, turning America into a Scandinavian country is impossible. It is true, Clinton did vote for some defunct and ineffective trade deals and the complete disaster that was the Iraq war, she had simply voted with what the general opinion was at the time. When the vote for the Iraq War was going through congress, the vast majority of Americans supported the notion, conservatives and liberals alike. Politicians, by definition, are puppets of the people, Obama changed his opinion on abortion during his 2012 re-election campaign because that was what the people preferred. The same goes with the TPP. On the other hand, Donald Trump's quickly shifting viewpoints and outright lies over his support of the Iraq War can be discredited easily. Bernie Sanders is a recent, rising star and thus represents the most current viewpoints. So no, Trump was a special kind of candidate who ripped out all of the previous roots, balances and established rules of the Presidential race, and much more than Sanders did. (See sources) Counter-Rebbutals As advice for future debates for Pro, do not lay arguments against your opponent's premise, for I provided no real evidence or sources, it was only the clarification of my viewpoint. Pro states that the popular vote is not the measure by which the President of the United States is chosen, this is true, but it plays a very relevant part of the conversation, because if Clinton succeeded over Sanders in the Primaries, it shows that no matter the candidate, the cards were laid against her adequately by the Republican Party to reap the system and allow her astounding and undemocratic loss (over three milion more people voted for Clinton instead of Trump). As a response to your point about a 'track record of disastrous and controversial decisions' see my previous point about politicians being puppets of the people's opinion at the time, this also goes for your point about Sanders being 'clean and scandal-free'. Sanders is a very recently arisen political figure, him only being a senator, but Clinton on the other hand, has had thirty years serving the US Government directly and there is much more time and material for adversaries to fabricate 'scandals' out of. I did in no way state that Wyong and its three electoral votes tipped the election to the Republicans. If you believe the candidate who won three million more votes than the other should lose the election, then your mentality is in fact the fallacious. She won over the crowds you speak of (Millenials, white working class etc.) less than Obama, but enough to win the election, this is once again, an example of the Electoral College halting her ability to do this. Pro does not appear to understand the meaning of 'Democratic-Socialist', this refers to a Democratic state, with elected officials, that utilises a system of socialism. It is this system that is highly rejected among most people in the USA. Sanders is certainly a rising star in politics, and I commend his ability to win over so many with little money and support, but this is perhaps one of the reasons he would not have won the general election against Trump. In response to Pro's note about not providing sources about the American Populace finding a Jewish Candidate unacceptable, I will quote an article from 'Medium' news site, 'ask voters in 40 states who have never sent a Jewish senator to Washington D.C. Ever. 40 states. Never Elected. A Jewish Senator. In 230 years. Are Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, suddenly ready to see a Jew in the Oval Office?'. While Obama is black, he is a practising Christian. There still exists a bias in politics, and if Pro is not able to accept that idea, than his premise can hardly be rational. See my earlier point about Pro's claim that Primary voters are not extreme, also see my sources Pro's Sources After making a few points, Pro gave us links to their sources. For example, in their 'Rebuttals' section, they wrote 'his policies resonated well with a large number of Americans', then gave the link for the NYT's exit polls, which showed no information about this. There are a few examples in his arguments which give links to entirely separate ideas and statements. I am running out of character count to write more examples. -[https://medium.com...] -[http://www.nytimes.com...] -[http://edition.cnn.com...] See prev. sources.