Bernie would have won.

Rebuttal - Demographics According to CNN Exit Polls, 10% of voters (not all apart of the quoted '69 million'). Only 24 million of these succeeded to vote. Contrary to SALON (a questionable news site, see sources), the 40-49 age group made up 19%, and they voted firmly Republican, this is the same with other age groups (other than millenials) that swayed the election. Pro continually states that Clinton greatly underformed the Millenial age group, although, she did win this age group with 56% of their vote. Only 34% of millenials voted for Trump, an very low number compared to ther electionds. 'Hillary seriously underperformed with the millenial bloc, thus costing her the Presidency' This statement is perhaps the most incorrect and outlandish in all of Pro's arguments. Not only did she win the age group, but less millenials voted for the Republican candidate from both 2012 and 2008 elections. If she had won the millenials as much as Obama in 2008, the Electoral College still would have caused a loss. (see sources) As to Pro's point concerning Clinton's losing the white female vote, I ask, did you assume that simply because someone was a woman, they would vote for Clinton? Or at least be easily persuaded? Or do you believe white women alone can represent all women? Clinton did not use the fact that she was a woman as support for her to become President, she simply wanted to note the historical importance of it, and perhaps show the way people's view on the Presidency could change. White women will always vote as white people usually do. Pennsylvania and Florida are generally not considered Rust Belt states (see sources). Once again, if Clinton had won these states in the general election, as she did in the primaries, she would have won the election with no support from the Rust Belt. I may have misunderstood Pro's claim. It appeared as if they were denying the fact that voters were far-left in the Democratic Primaries; 'this absolutely unfounded claim would outrage anyone with a basic understanding of the Democratic Party and its primaries'. If you look at the results of the Demoractic Primaries, you will see my original claim stands up, the most far-left and progressive voters skewed the results. My point that 'The USA, the sprawling, militaristic, destroyer of communism and police of the world' was sarcasm, I suppose it is hard to communicate dry humour through writing. On Pro's point, what does America envisioning itself as the police of the world have to do with Clinton's loss. Clinton and Sanders supported the idea of global cooperation and peacemaking, he made the same points, this statement doesn't show why Clinton lost. The war in Iraq is undefendable, but the vote is defendable. If Pro read my example with Obama in that paragraph, they would know that Obama did not support gay marriage in 2008, but in his re-election seemingly swapped his views. Clinton is known because of her flip-flopping because of the relentless investigation of the media, if the media were to have investigated other candidates as closely, they would have found the same results. Pro appears to deny my claim that Bernie Sanders not a recent star who represents the current viewpoints. Well, if he didn't represent current viewpoints, if they hadn't changed since the 1980's, he would not have won a single vote. My point is, Bernie Sanders changes his views as much as any other politician, or he would be unable to run. While it is true, Medium allows anyone to write articles, you can still be able to see the logic in someone's argument, did you read the fact I originally quoted? The Wisconscin primary gave him a 'landslide' victory, but that primary didn't exactly guarentee the election, see my earlier point on the Primaires. Unfortunately, many more millians would cast a ballot against him because they are uncomfortable with the notion of a Jewish person in office. Wisconscin progressives are not the only people in America. A Final Argument According to an old guardian article about what Sanders supporters did after he left the race, 2/3 of them went to Jill Stein, and 1/3 went to Clinton, and there were a few others who went to Trump, Johnson or didn't vote at all. Now, the number of people who voted for Jill Stein was around 1.2 million, say the election was Sanders v Trump. Spread 1.2 million Stein voters across 50 states, and you to add around 20,000 votes to each state (obviously the numbers vary based on the state's population, but we can work with the average). 20,000 votes was not enough to beat Trump's margin in any state. Using pure math and logic, we can see that clearly, Sanders would not have attained enough support to defeat the Electoral College. Conclusion For the record, I highly respect Bernie Sanders and commend his ability to win over so many with so little resources, and I do wish him luck in the future and see his good intentions. Through this debate, I want to remind Pro and the audience that unfortunately now, we have a Trump victory, and while I am guilty of blaming the Electoral College, we should stop finding blame in arbritary things, (bargaining in the 5 stages of grief) and look to the future, remaining vigilant and critical. I thank my opponent and commend their skill in debating, and I hope to debate with them some time again. -(http://edition.cnn.com...) -(http://www.people-press.org...) -(https://www.theguardian.com...) -(https://www.bustle.com...) -(http://www.270towin.com...) -(https://unitedstateshistorylsa.wikispaces.com...)