...then it still wouldn't matter if the election were held today. I've crunched the numbers.
First of all, based on Atlas' aggregate state-by-state polling (for better or worse: obviously some states are skewed in one direction or another) and if the election were held today with 2012 levels of turnout, then
Clinton would win the national popular vote by 9,100,000 votes in a two-way model.
After
doing the math earlier this evening behind how much Sanders voters' frustration could affect the national popular vote if one-quarter of the currently one-quarter who say they won't support her actually follow through, I decided to plug these numbers into the electoral map and put 'em on steroids.
Instead of doing the math on what one-quarter of one-quarter of Sanders voters could do, I decided to go balls to the wall: what would happen if
one-third of Sanders voters refused to vote for Clinton, and 10% of that group cast ballots for Trump?
It would certainly put a dent in Clinton's popular vote totals: she drops from 9,100,000 to 4,900,000 (this figure includes projections for states yet to vote). In the two-way model, this means going from 53.5% of the vote to 52.0% of the vote. If you were to factor in the approximate number of votes expected for third parties in a normal scenario (i.e.: no concerted and successful third-party conservative effort), then this would roughly compare to Obama's 2008/2012 margins.
In the Electoral College, Clinton loses two states that she currently leads in in aggregate polling: AZ & OH. This reduces her EC total from 343 to 314. Both NH & MN are also very close in this scenario (both have Clinton leading by less than a percentage point), but these two states are arguably two of the most skewed (NH due to the abnormally high amount of support for Sanders/high turnout in the state; MN due to the two skewed polls in the system that shows GOP winning by 2-6 points). PA & NC become a lot closer than many would like.
*If* all four of those were to flip to Trump, then it'd result in a Clinton loss, with 265 EVs. Considering the swing state superiority when it comes to Democratic campaigns and the fact that Minnesota alone would prevent this scenario, it is a very unlikely one.
In short (animated):
I guess this explains why the Clinton campaign is in WDGAF mode. Obviously the number isn't going to be anywhere near this amount, but even if it were, she'd slide by very comfortably in the popular vote and almost certainly squeeze out an Obama-like trouncing in terms of sweeping most swing states.
