Bernie would have won.

I thank Con for providing his arguments.RebuttalsCon begins his statement with a baseless claim that 'Bernie Sanders' person would not be substantial enough to defeat Trump' This argument is simply ridiculous. His policies have resonated well with a large number of Americans [1], as for his 'person' as Con puts it, not being 'substantial enough' to defeat Donald Trump, that is simply irrelevant and must be ignored. He goes on to say that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote 'because of her outstanding experience, record for goodwill and resillience during endless tirades of baseless allegations' This groundless praise of Hillary Clinton is incorrect. The remarkably low turnout of voters [1] who voted Democratic is anything but proof of the American people rushing to the voting booth because of her outstanding experience and 'record for goodwill', and while yes, she did win the popular vote, it is not the measure by which the President of the United States is chosen and thus plays an irrelevant part in the conversation. As for the 'baseless allegations', one could call them baseless while the other would not, the fact of the matter remains that Bernie Sanders, contrary to Hillary Clinton did not (and does not) have a track record of disastrous and controversial decisions (Iraq War vote, PATRIOT Act vote, TPP lobbying, Paid speeches to Wall Street firms, the remarkably careless decision to use her own private e-mail server, her push for regime change around the world, on and on) Instead, Bernie Sanders would have been the clean, scandal-free candidate that Hillary was not.He then goes on to state that no democratic candidate would have won, an incredibly erroneous statement, because 'the Electoral College' leads to the Republican candidate succeeding. That argument is by default erroneous, President Barack Obama led the party tolandslideback-to-back Electoral College victories. Con simply puts forward a fallacious mentality used by Pro-Clinton crowds, to blame the Electoral College system. Yet, she knew the rules of the game and she partook in it. And while it's true that the smaller states receive more votes than they should, it's simply ill-founded to even entertain the idea that Wyoming and its 3 electoral votes totally tipped the election to the Republicans. Truth is, Hillary Clinton seriously underperformed. All that was necessary was to hang on to Obama's coalition, it would have suffised to see the Democrats keep hold of the White House. But she continually snubbed blue-collar americans, progressives, millenials, stuck to a brand of identity politics that completely back-fired on her (see diminished female vote, millenial vote and even latino vote [3])Rebuttal to 'Socialism and Judaism'This is where it gets interesting, and also extremely flawed. Con begins by stating that Bernie Sanders is a self-proclaimed Socialist, which he has denied multiple times. He has stated himself as a Democratic-Socialist. And while it is frequent for the Centrist wing of the Democratic Party to brush him aside as a radical socialist nut job, they're quick to forget that in the span of a year, with no Super Pac funding, absolutely no Political recognition, and a position of 3% in all national polls, with the mainstream media giving him little to no chance of winning a single state, he managed to win 23. [4] Despite ridiculously low media coverage, Sanders completed one of the most improbable run in American political history, challenging the Clinton establishment, and giving them a run for their money. With that in mind, the idea that the American populace would massively reject his 'socialist' ideas is totally flawed, rejecting trade deals, foreign interventions and globalism, are not 'socialist' ideas, they're populist ones. Furthermore, his agenda polls extremely well. Therefore rejecting this flawed notion that 'Americans would not even consider' him [5]Con goes on to ridiculously state that the American population would not elect a Jewish candidate to lead the country. This is simply ridiculous to claim about a country that elected a black man to lead it, twice. That same jewish candidate Con brands as unelectable won 23 state primaries and caucuses. And while, yes, there is plenty of discrimination and plenty of work to do towards reaching perfect racial and religious peace, there's simply no way 'he couldn't have won because he was Jewish' passes as credible argument.(also, no sources to back up the idea that a jewish candidate is 'unacceptable' to a 'surprisingly large number of voters')'Primary voters often are quite extreme supporters of their party and rarely are centrists or even moderate supporters' this absolutely unfounded claim would outrage anyone with a basic understanding of the Democratic Party and its primaries. Most Independents are Progressives (thus explaining Bernie's significant success among that group)[6] and independents were shut out of many important primaries throughout the Democratic Primaries, thus costing him multiple contestsConclusion --Clinton's campaign played on identity politics to try and deflect from decades of poor judgement and poor decisions by Hillary Clinton. Their cockiness led them to take the election for granted, and, for instance, completely ignore states in the Rust Belt, that she assumed were safe democratic states (she never stepped foot in Wisconsin during the general, for instance. Then blames racism and sexism as to why she may have lost it.) This is why it is evident that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Donald Trump, he had appeal to blue-collar workers in Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, states that she lost. He had appeal to millenials, progressives and independents. He was scandal-free, and has a record of consistency fighting for populist causes, in the election were Americans turned to populist candidates to lead. Sources -- (proper order will be in comments)https://en.wikipedia.org...http://state.1keydata.com...http://www.cnn.com...http://www.vox.com...http://www.businessinsider.com...;http://www.cnn.com...;