to support that Sanders would've outperformed Clinton in a general. Those same polls had Clinton beating Trump in a general, but just barely, whereas they had Sanders winning by a comfortable margin.

This isn't even logic - it's just pollster math.

>bernie and hillary split the rust belt 50/50. hillary won the
>biggest states of pa and oh by over 10% in each state. bernie
>won wi and mi (mi by only about 1% even with a surge of
>independent bernie supporters in an open primary).

again - you're speaking as if the electorate math in a primary mirrors the electorate in a general, but it doesn't. Do you honestly think that Sanders would've gotten swept in the rust belt?

It's correct to note that Clinton had stronger support in the Democratic primary electorate (though Sanders certainly tested that in a way that nobody thought he could could) - but the electorate in a General election features markedly different voting trends/behavior. The aforementioned polls (again, not my opinion) reflected that.

>i think bernie supporters are relying way too much on cultural
>cues and personality folklore than actual voter behavior
>displayed in hardcoded election data.

I'm not supporting Sanders in this primary (he's not my first choice, though I would gladly get behind him if he emerges as the favorite), but it's funny that you are talking about "folklore" when I just gave you polling facts.

But I'd like to check out some data to support your claim if you'd like to share.


-->