On Politifact, it says it is indeed true that Sanders was polling better than Hillary.
It varies how much.
But why would he be higher in points if he didn’t attract independents and perhaps some republicans?
There’s probably a lot of reasons that Bernie was polling better than Clinton against Trump in spring and early summer in general election polls.
Why do you think this is relevant?
Because I was told by you:
"Nope. Not even close.
The primary was effectively over after super Tuesday. There was no point after that where anyone who understood the rules thought Bernie could win.
Also Clinton typically crushed Sanders in open primary states where non Dems could vote"
So I asked why then, did Bernie do better polling in the GE?
Not trying to be confrontational. I just don’t understand.
The oft-heard refrain was that Hillary’s negatives were “baked in”. We knew just what the GOP was going to derisively smear her with; they were already doing it, they’d been doing it during the primaries and before the primaries and for years and decades prior to that.
Bernie, on the other hand – the GOP could just shrug and amiably say “yeah, he seems more honest than Crooked Hillary. And he seems like someone we could work with, on gun rights. And we’re not chanting to lock him up, because we don’t think he’s committed any crimes.” And so on.
But if Bernie had gotten the nomination, then the GOP would’ve presumably unloaded on the guy with the biggest and best-funded attack ads you’ve ever seen: stuff they never got around to saying, but only because there was never yet any reason to. And that’s when Bernie’s poll numbers would, presumably, drop down – the way Hillary’s already had, see.
Because the general election and the primary are not the same thing. Also, there’s no reason to make assumptions about how primary voters would behave based on poll responses of general election voters when you can look directly at the actual behavior of primary voters.
The most recent Sanders v. Trump poll I could find was IBD/TIPP poll that was in the field from 5/31/2016 to 6/5/2016. It showed Sanders 49 to Trump 39 for a margin of Sanders +10. That same poll asked about Clinton v. Trump and showed Clinton 45 to Trump 40 for a margin of Clinton +5.
If that were the only way to compare Clinton to Sanders, a reasonable conclusion would be that Sanders would best Clinton in a head to head contest. However, that was pretty far from the only way to compare Clinton and Sanders on 6/5/2016. They had already completed a bunch of head to head contests and had a handful more to go at that point. The results of those actual contests heavily favored Clinton and did so even when the contest was completely open to all voters.
Also Sanders +10 versus Clinton +5 does not tell the whole story about that poll. Against Sanders, Trump’s share was 39 versus 40 against Clinton. That’s barely distinguishable from noise. The main difference is that Bernie’s 49% melted down to 45% when Clinton was the D choice. So 4% of voters would vote for Bernie over Trump but not for Clinton over Trump, or at least that’s what they were saying on June 5th.
This is not evidence that Bernie would have won the primary if Republicans and independents could have voted in it. This is evidence that some hard core Bernie supporters had not yet been won over by Clinton on June 5th, two days before the California primary.
I think I understand.
I do have a difficult time understanding things… but everywhere I go, there’s a different angle. So it may not be “fake news”, but “bias news”.
Thank you for taking the time to explain things. 
That may or may not be true… we don’t know what they had on Bernie, other than calling him a Socialist.
Well for a lot of people, particularly members of the white working class that’s enough.
Beyond that if anyone thinks working class white guys particularly older ones like aging hippies I’d say they don’t know much about either.
Also, once they painted him as the guy who’d never had a real job(by his own admission) till he was nearly 40 and had been writing articles as a journalist arguing if men got prostrate cancer it was probably because they’d been humiliated by “an old bitch” while young and that 15 and 16 year old girls should start “ignoring their mothers” and “giving themselves freely to their boyfriends” or else they might get cancer due to a lack of orgasms.
As distinct from the painful rectitude and untouchable moral probity of the Republican candidate.
Racism. They were already laying the groundwork in case he pulled an upset and got nominated.
I’m not saying Sanders is a racist. But his political opponents had enough to present a plausible story. And that’s all that was needed. No Democratic candidate is going to win a presidential election without strong support from black voters.
Not nearly as bullshit as blaming the 50 year old man’s wife for them. But some people do insist on blaming Hillary for everything regardless of how much sense it makes.
Well, it was Hillary’s mob that came up with the Bernie is a racist stuff.
Not Donald Trump.
And I doubt that if Superpredator Trump did stoop to that, ‘black voters’ would have listened.
I don’t recall Clinton’s camp ever suggesting for a moment that Sanders was racist. I do recall some of her supporters (specifically at least one or two black writers/commentators as I recall) who pointed out that some of Bernie’s comments and those of his supporters showed a lack of awareness when it comes to race. Like when Bernie boasted his progressive credentials because he was brave enough to appear in a “dangerous” neighborhood (or something to that effect). And they pointed out that some (certainly not all but some) of his noisier supporters condescendingly lectured black supporters for not being intelligent enough to support the better candidate and obviously voting against their own interests. I don’t think the Clinton camp ever suggested that Sanders or his supporters were racist, just maybe not aware of how they could be perceived by some black voters. But having said that I’d also acknowledge that the Clintons were unaware of how they were perceived in 2008 when they were running against Barack Obama.
As for the “super predators” comment, that’s been badly taken out of context and it’s unfortunate that it became an issue. In no way was that ever meant to be racist, and anyone who viewed the clip at the time thought it was. The Clintons took heat for supporting the crime bill which is often blamed for mass incarceration, but guess which other sitting senator at the time voted for it? Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, everything she ever said was always deliberately misunderstood, and every action she ever took was immediately distorted by the vast right-wing conspiracy. She don’t get no respect.
Funny how he marches with MLK, and he’s a racist?
I’m not saying that Hillary was a racist at all, but she was the “Goldwater girl”, and used the term “Super Predators”… so Hillary supporters shouldn’t throw stones.
Imma call the Guinness Book people right now, because that hurdle you just made over the enormous middle has got to be a record.
If Bill Clinton was a Republican, would you feel the same way or do we just slutshame women who sleep with married Democrats?
I don’t think BobLib Dem is telling ALL women to shut up and sit down as the “ready for Hillary” crowd seems to pretend whenever there is criticism of Hillary. He is just telling Hillary to shut up and sit down. She lost a very winnable election to Donald bobblehead Trump, it was hers to lose and she lost it. Vagina or not Hillary Clinton should sit down and shut up.
We’re not even “slutshaming” Monica, so the point is moot.
Well, the Democratic machine was certainly in the bag for her and helped her cheat during the primaries. You might say they didn’t make a difference. Are you so sure that news of her cheating (combined with her lack of campaigning in rust belt states)didn’t reduce her turnout by just a few percentage points?
And if she cheated, then we really have no idea how MUCH she cheated do we? All we know is that she is a cheater.