Bernie would have won.

'his arguments give links to entirely separate ideas and statements'Since I was running out time and space I clearly explained that I would provide the proper order of sources in the comments. Final Rebuttal - DemographicsCon accuses me of giving 'too much notice' to the Millenial voting bloc, and ignoring the importance of African-Americans, Asians, and others. Not only does Con misunderstand the key importance of Millenials, (as SALON puts it, 'The Millennial voting bloc is large enough to literally decide who wins.' [1]), but the fact remains that the millennial bloc is extremely large in numbers, (69 million Americans)[1] and ultimately, Hillary Clinton's poor performance among that age group is one of the many reason she lost this election. In other words, yes there is an America of the African Americans, Asians, etc., but that does not excuse the fact that Hillary seriously underperformed with the millennial bloc, thus costing her the Presidency, a group that was quite remarkably attracted to Bernie's agenda.He then goes on address Hillary's poor showing with women. 'Contrary to Pro's argument, Hillary Clinton only lost one percentage point to Obama's vote' that statement does not stand opposite to my argument, at all. Why is it, that the first female candidate for President could barely garner over 54% of the female vote? Why is it that the first female candidate for President lost the white women vote? Regardless of Con's arguments, that is a poor showing by any definitions in the book. She had a considerable amount of money, the staff, the ads, the support of the entire party establishment (contrary to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump), and yet, she blew it. Simply because the economic challenges that factory workers faced in the Rust Belt were felt by both men and women, and while Trump was addressing the disenfranchised crowds, and promising an end to the trade deals that caused their loss of jobs and an end to the 'elites' that signed them, Clinton was holding private fundraisers with multi-millionaires. [2][3][4][5] (seriously, that many private fundraisers with the ultra-rich, and then to turn around and pin Trump as the 'out-of-touch' candidate, how was that going to work?)Con's statement defending Chuck Schumer's statements simply outlines what's wrong with the establishment democratic Party. He (Schumer) literally argues against working to attract blue-collar working class workers, and instead, appealing to moderate Republicans. That statement received a lot of criticism at the time as well, thus negating Con's argument that it made consensus at the time. 'The claim that the key states of the election were the Rust Belt states is mostly false.' Jesus-Christ, that's wrong. A simple glance at the electoral map of 2012 and 2016 proves it, The key states Obama won in 2008 & 2012, thus guaranteeing the White House? Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia. The states Trump flipped from blue to red thus winning the White House: Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. She lost every key state that guaranteed back-to-back Obama victories. And they're all (minus Florida) located in the Rust Belt, contrary to what Con would like you to believe. It's not up to debate, the Rust Belt played the biggest part in this election. 'False, because if Clinton had won Pennsylvania, she would have beaten Trump' not sure how that plays in the narrative that 'rust belt states weren't key' seeing Pennsylvania is a state in the Rust Belt... [6] He then says, 'Pro has stated that voters in the primaries are not far left, and results correctly represents the results in the general, if it were true Clinton would have won Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvannia, this clearly did not happen.' That's incorrect. I stated that the 'far left' and 'progressives' in America identified as Independents, and thus did not vote in the Primaries of New-York, and other large states that barred voting rights to Independents. 'and results correctly represents the results in the general' Con has literally put words in my mouth..I will skip the empty, unsubstantiated, ill-founded attacks on Bernie's agenda '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', because Con goes on to claim that, 'the USA, the sprawling, militaristic, destroyer of communism and police of the world can't be turned to something similar to Finland or Sweden. The idea is utterly ridiculous.' This is exactly what cost Hillary the election. Americans reject that flawed idea that the United States should be the policeman of the world, while American jobs are leaving, infrastructure is crumbling, and income inequality is at an all time high. Con goes on to defend the vote for the war in Iraq, which is simply undefendable. It is up to politicians to persuade the general public, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders fought the war, and spoke out against it. If Hillary was morally opposed to the war, she would've done the same. And while yes, politicians changing their views on a topic is frequent, Clinton is known for her flipflopping, she said it herself, 'it's best to have a private and a public opinion' Sanders, on the other hand, has a record of integrity, and consistency. For over 25 years he has fought for the same agenda he is currently advocating, therefore when Con says that Sanders who has been in Congress leading the progressive fight, is a 'recent star and represents the current viewpoints' is questionable. My final rebuttal concerns the article he pulled from Medium, a platform where everyone, regardless of political knowledge can write articles, and thus not a 'news site', that supports the claim that multiple states aren't 'Ready to see a Jew in the Oval Office', I continue to believe that argument is a just a hack argument and in truth, is passes as a poorly elaborated one. Con asks a question, I will answer it, when voters in the Wisconsin democratic Primary handed him a landslide victory were they not making a statement, were they not 'ready' for a Jew in the Oval Office? When millions cast a ballot across the country, voting for him to lead the democrats to victory in the general election, were they not 'ready for a Jew' ?Conclusion Hillary's loss to Donald Trump will remain in U.S Political history as one of the biggest electoral upset. A true statement by the working class, against the establishment. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Bernie Sanders would've won the crucial blue-collar states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, West Virginia and Ohio. His working class appeal was clearly evident throughout the Democratic Primaries, with no political capital, no SuperPac funds, no Media Coverage, he managed to win 23 primaries and caucuses. That should've been a warning to Clinton's campaign, that the American populace was beginning to reject her Neoliberal policies, but instead the Clinton campaign stuck to their brand of identity politics. The tide is shifting, a new brand of politics is taking birth, and that was made evident by Bernie's impressive run, managing, despite a Party stacked against him, to win 23 contests and upset pundits. His appeal to the working class and clean record would've beaten Donald Trump in the fall. Thank you, Con, for debating me, as well as the readers/voters. [1 http://www.salon.com...[2 http://www.nytimes.com... [3 http://www.zerohedge.com...;[4 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...;[5 http://fortune.com...;[6 https://en.wikipedia.org...Rust_Belt