Rural Americans felt abandoned by Democrats in 2016, so they abandoned them back

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What exactly are Democrats supposed to give Rural America to get them to vote for Democratic? Nobody benefited more from ACA/Obamacare than rural America (especially Medicaid expansion) and yet they still continue to trend to the Republicans.

The GOP's policies are poison to the needs of rural Americans, especially farmers

Umm stop thinking "giving them something" is what they want?

Winning back rural America is easy, dial back the attacks on religion and guns, dial back the BLM pandering, and talk about the economy again.

So tell minorities/soon to be majorities to shut up got it never

-If the Democrats had a White primary, Bernie would have won (and have done so in the general, too, but only if minorities were allowed to vote in the general).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

What exactly are Democrats supposed to give Rural America to get them to vote for Democratic? Nobody benefited more from ACA/Obamacare than rural America (especially Medicaid expansion) and yet they still continue to trend to the Republicans.

The GOP's policies are poison to the needs of rural Americans, especially farmers

Umm stop thinking "giving them something" is what they want?

Winning back rural America is easy, dial back the attacks on religion and guns, dial back the BLM pandering, and talk about the economy again.

So tell minorities/soon to be majorities to shut up got it never

-If the Democrats had a White primary, Bernie would have won (and have done so in the general, too, but only if minorities were allowed to vote in the general).

Yes, we know, you yearn for the days of the all-White Democratic primaries.

-Nope. I want Democrats to continue losing, not to take back the Senate. Even the early 20th century Democrats often (not always) had horrid economic stances, and awful foreign policy views, so I'm not a huge fan of them.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Regarding the comment "Bernie would have won" .. I think the Healthcare debate with Cruz... hints to the fact that Sanders is much more effective debating and running in a primary- where the voters are inclined to go with the major parts of his arguments... But not so effective when having to debate Republican... who fundamentally do not agree with even the premise of his argument.

-Goldwater lost. Sometimes, the conservative position is not the popular one. And Cruz lost his debate with Sanders, as he couldn't coherently defend an alternative to Obamacare.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Regarding the comment "Bernie would have won" .. I think the Healthcare debate with Cruz... hints to the fact that Sanders is much more effective debating and running in a primary- where the voters are inclined to go with the major parts of his arguments... But not so effective when having to debate Republican... who fundamentally do not agree with even the premise of his argument.

I agree, sure they may have picked up some stein voters in every state, but that's not to say they wouldn't have lost quite a bit of suburban voters in exchange.

-Who are the Clinton voters who'd never consider voting for Sanders, again? I suspect these people fall into two categories; a tiny minority of Appalachians and fictional characters.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Regarding the comment "Bernie would have won" .. I think the Healthcare debate with Cruz... hints to the fact that Sanders is much more effective debating and running in a primary- where the voters are inclined to go with the major parts of his arguments... But not so effective when having to debate Republican... who fundamentally do not agree with even the premise of his argument.

-Goldwater lost. Sometimes, the conservative position is not the popular one. And Cruz lost his debate with Sanders, as he couldn't coherently defend an alternative to Obamacare.

Goldwater did lose, people viewed as being on the fringes usually do in The us.

As for Cruz losing the debate, I don't think that was the consensus, Bernie got smacked around quite a bit.

-Cruz had an uphill battle, by nature of universal healthcare sounding good, even to many Trump voters. I do not think he successfully fought his way up the hill, even though Bernie had his bad moments.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Regarding the comment "Bernie would have won" .. I think the Healthcare debate with Cruz... hints to the fact that Sanders is much more effective debating and running in a primary- where the voters are inclined to go with the major parts of his arguments... But not so effective when having to debate Republican... who fundamentally do not agree with even the premise of his argument.

I agree, sure they may have picked up some stein voters in every state, but that's not to say they wouldn't have lost quite a bit of suburban voters in exchange.

-Who are the Clinton voters who'd never consider voting for Sanders, again? I suspect these people fall into two categories; a tiny minority of Appalachians and fictional characters.

The moderate suburban Rs and republican leaning unaffiliated. Socialism is still a bad bad word to much of the US

-I can assure you those Rubio voters in Loudoun County and Kasich-voting elitists in East Grand Rapids who voted for HRC would never vote for Trump, unless perhaps the Democratic nominee was Kanye. What concrete reasons would they have for not voting for Sanders if they voted for HRC?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-Who are the Clinton voters who'd never consider voting for Sanders, again? I suspect these people fall into two categories; a tiny minority of Appalachians and fictional characters.

The moderate suburban Rs and republican leaning unaffiliated. Socialism is still a bad bad word to much of the US

Its probably more the case that many of these voters just simply stay home and not vote.

I doubt this, there may have been more blank ballots, but too many people vote for other reasons than simply president, might have seen a stronger Johnson

-Or, perhaps, many Johnson voters, viewing Bernie as the civil liberties candidate, would have voted for Bernie.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Regarding the comment "Bernie would have won" .. I think the Healthcare debate with Cruz... hints to the fact that Sanders is much more effective debating and running in a primary- where the voters are inclined to go with the major parts of his arguments... But not so effective when having to debate Republican... who fundamentally do not agree with even the premise of his argument.

I agree, sure they may have picked up some stein voters in every state, but that's not to say they wouldn't have lost quite a bit of suburban voters in exchange.

-Who are the Clinton voters who'd never consider voting for Sanders, again? I suspect these people fall into two categories; a tiny minority of Appalachians and fictional characters.

The moderate suburban Rs and republican leaning unaffiliated. Socialism is still a bad bad word to much of the US

-I can assure you those Rubio voters in Loudoun County and Kasich-voting elitists in East Grand Rapids who voted for HRC would never vote for Trump, unless perhaps the Democratic nominee was Kanye. What concrete reasons would they have for not voting for Sanders if they voted for HRC?

one, no you can't "assure" me of that difference, and who's to say they would automatically swing trump? 8% of voters who ID'd as republicans and 16% of those that ID'd as conservative voted for Hillary, a large chunk of those may have voted third party when presented with an open socialist in Sanders. I don't see how sanders would have held those voters and gained all the stein voters.

-Why wouldn't Sanders have held all these voters? He was too popular? Yes; Bernie would likely have done even worse than HRC in rural Appalachia. So?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

It really doesn't hurt the insurance companies much, they are actually getting more premiums because of increased membership. If those people can't get insurance, they just end up in the emergency room and those costs often end up leading back to government. It's not really worth arguing about since it's a settled issue because neither party really wants to bring back barring people from insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

-In a new unified government, there should be no settled issues (and there probably aren't, anyway). I'm also opposed to the individual mandate.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Regarding the comment "Bernie would have won" .. I think the Healthcare debate with Cruz... hints to the fact that Sanders is much more effective debating and running in a primary- where the voters are inclined to go with the major parts of his arguments... But not so effective when having to debate Republican... who fundamentally do not agree with even the premise of his argument.

I agree, sure they may have picked up some stein voters in every state, but that's not to say they wouldn't have lost quite a bit of suburban voters in exchange.

-Who are the Clinton voters who'd never consider voting for Sanders, again? I suspect these people fall into two categories; a tiny minority of Appalachians and fictional characters.

The moderate suburban Rs and republican leaning unaffiliated. Socialism is still a bad bad word to much of the US

-I can assure you those Rubio voters in Loudoun County and Kasich-voting elitists in East Grand Rapids who voted for HRC would never vote for Trump, unless perhaps the Democratic nominee was Kanye. What concrete reasons would they have for not voting for Sanders if they voted for HRC?

one, no you can't "assure" me of that difference, and who's to say they would automatically swing trump? 8% of voters who ID'd as republicans and 16% of those that ID'd as conservative voted for Hillary, a large chunk of those may have voted third party when presented with an open socialist in Sanders. I don't see how sanders would have held those voters and gained all the stein voters.

-Why wouldn't Sanders have held all these voters? He was too popular? Yes; Bernie would likely have done even worse than HRC in rural Appalachia. So?

How popular was sanders? He didn't win the D primary, it's ignorant to assume he'd have done what Hillary did and just added stein voters.

Because he is an open socialist, those policies don't always align with what many regular Americans actually believe, would he have done well in rural PA? No. Would he have done well in rural Wisconsin? Doubtful. It's an ignorant statement to view this election with a Ceteris Paribus mind frame

-Did you bother to look at the general election matchup polls? Sanders was even beating Kasich. His popularity was much more analogous to that of Lyndon Johnson than of George McGovern. He remains the single most popular Democrat nationwide.

It is, indeed, ignorant to assume he'd have done as well as Clinton did and just added Stein voters. Rather, he would have done at least three points better than Hillary Clinton in every northern state.

You do realize Sanders won every single county in rural Wisconsin in the primary, right?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Regarding the comment "Bernie would have won" .. I think the Healthcare debate with Cruz... hints to the fact that Sanders is much more effective debating and running in a primary- where the voters are inclined to go with the major parts of his arguments... But not so effective when having to debate Republican... who fundamentally do not agree with even the premise of his argument.

-Goldwater lost. Sometimes, the conservative position is not the popular one. And Cruz lost his debate with Sanders, as he couldn't coherently defend an alternative to Obamacare.

Can you suggest anyone who can, considering that no one in the GOP Congressional caucus has put forward a plan that meets all of the party's stated objectives for repeal and replace?

-What do you mean by "all of the party's stated objectives"? Obviously, not everyone's going to be covered.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

Anytime the "States Decide" or have to burden the cost of anything... The citizens of that state pay the bill... (and feel it more directly than when the federal gov't does... as the Fed Gov't can take money from other areas of their budget... that would've likely been spent on something less needed than healthcare.

-That's why I suggest it. The incentives for states to economize are greater. I'm a big supporter of strict economy in government.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

-I say let them remain untreated then, but wouldn't mind too much if the state legislature ignores my advice -they have careers.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The democratic party did not abandon rural people... rural people are just attracted like a shiny object to the Republican message on guns, ISIS, the wall, and other nonsense that spews out of Trump's mouths, that will do absolutely nothing to provide real world benefit to them.  And now they will lose their health care.  Elections have consequences.

-Only a tiny fraction of Americans will lose healthcare from the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. Might hurt Senate candidates in Kerry states, but won't keep Trump from re-election.

I don't think that's true.  What are you basing that off of?  And what about the pre-existing condition thing... if that's gutted that's going to screw a lot of people.

-I'm strongly opposed to mandated coverage of pre-existing conditions anyway. Raises insurance costs for people without pre-existing conditions. Still not going to have a big electoral impact beyond 2018.

You are sadly mistaken about that. The elimination of pre-existing conditions is the most popular provision and it is effective. With that said, it doesn't look like a repeal will happen anytime soon if at all, so it seems as if the powers that be are aware of the danger of repealing health care.

-It's frankly nutty. Insurance companies are not welfare agencies.

I didn't say they were, genius. People who pay premiums should be allowed to buy insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

-Insurance companies should not be forced by the government to cover pre-existing conditions.

What is your plan for people with pre-existing conditions?

-Let them pay out of pocket for those conditions. I've always felt that those who use the most of a service should pay for it most, except in cases where that service has desirable externalities.

I just wish every Republican were as honest as you.

Many people could not pay out of pocket for those conditions.  Is the GOP prepared to suggest to folks that they will just have to suffer, and, perhaps, die before their time, after a period of diminished quality of life?

-I suggest letting the states decide on what to do about the sick who are not able to earn enough to pay for their treatment expenses.

What do you advocate that the state you live in do?

-I say let them remain untreated then, but wouldn't mind too much if the state legislature ignores my advice -they have careers.

With all due respect, you're two inches short of a monster.

-I tend to favor liberty over equality.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

-Liberty is negative in nature, not positive.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

You can't be any more unfree than dead.

-Liberty is negative in nature, not positive.

If that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night then I suppose it would be unkind of me to stop you.

-That's not "what I need to tell myself to sleep at night"; it's self-evident.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Again, Rjjr77, you have not shown a single example of a #NeverSanders HRC 2016 voter. I do think such a creature may exist, but only in Appalachia. #NeverHillary was very much a thing! Look at Wyandotte, MI, Sauk County, WI, and Royalston, MA.

There are tons of examples, but they are all anecdotal, which is worthless in this discussion. As for sanders, yes he did better in general election polls, so did Kasich, neither of whom actually ran in a general election. Just assuming these polls carry over after a full campaign is silly.

Yes sanders won counties in the democrat primary, that's a primary campaign with more partisan voters, he did great in Kansas trump didn't, using your logic he would have won there. You can't expect a candidate who didn't face a barrage of attacks to just magically claim points based on no evidence. They could have easily ran ads through the upper Midwest with his far more ideological left stances and communist level affiliations.

-Give me some anecdotal examples; they're better than nothing. Kasich did not win a single state outside his home state; Bernie won lots of states outside Vermont. Very different levels of being untested.

Sanders would have done better in KS than HRC, but not well enough to win.

He won the White vote in the primaries precisely because of his ideological left stances. They didn't hurt him in the polls.

I've seen tons of anecdotal evidence, but it's anecdotal and doesn't matter. You can't say "sanders did better in the primary with whites, he would have done better in the general." We've never seen correlations like that between primary and general, because the electorates are different. Hillary dominated Bernie with rural whites in Ohio in the primary, and got hammered by them in the general, sanders lost white voters in Pennsylvania, so he would have done worse there than in the general? Your argument ignores how elections work as well, you take far too many assumptions.

-Ohio was a special case due to Sanders supporters voting for Kasich.

Yes; Sanders probably would have won PA by doing better in Lancaster County and similar areas. He didn't have toxic foreign policy views, a sense of stagnation, and an email scandal around his neck.