How would Sanders be doing against Trump right now?

[AGA]

Bernie Sanders frequently cited polls to make the case that he was stronger against Trump than Clinton, but many dismissed these polls since Sanders had not gotten enough exposure or scrutiny. How would Sanders be doing against Trump right now if he had been the Democratic nominee?

[heatcharger]

About the same, maybe a bit better. He doesn't have any scandals to speak of, and Trump can't attack him on the Iraq War, trade deals, or being corrupt.

I don't buy the notion Republicans would chalk him up to being a radical socialist. They are running an actual demagogue, I don't think it would be that big of a problem.

[evergreenarbor]

Something like D+2 or D+3.

[Fusionmunster]

Better than Hillary, not better than a reborn FDR. So somewhere between +6 and +8.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Trump +5, and only downhill for Bernie from there. He would be destroyed in the suburbs.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

D+20.  He was the only candidate the left, center, and right could agree on in my family, and that's huge (YUGE even).

[Maxwell]

Better than Hillary, not better than a reborn FDR. So somewhere between +6 and +8.

that's what I'm thinking.

[Boston Bread]

Trump +5, and only downhill for Bernie from there. He would be destroyed in the suburbs.

Bernie did better in suburban than urban areas in the primaries.

[This account no longer in use.]

Trump would win all states except Hawaii and Vermont if Bernie was lucky (sane, totally not a hack)

[Senator Spark]

D +5-6. Had Hillary not won the primaries, I'd probably be voting for him.

[Boston Bread]

D+20.  He was the only candidate the left, center, and right could agree on in my family, and that's huge (YUGE even).

D +5-6. Had Hillary not won the primaries, I'd probably be voting for him.

Sanders supporters really are the most diverse group when it comes to ideology. Not so much when it comes to demographics however.

[Chief Justice Keef]

D+12.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

with minorities: ±0 to -2
with white women: -2 to -4
with white men: +4 to -2

which would add up to roundabouts +1 to -3

[VPH]

Trump +5, and only downhill for Bernie from there. He would be destroyed in the suburbs.

Bernie did better in suburban than urban areas in the primaries.

He did best in white rural and exurban areas.

[Bismarck]

Trump +5, and only downhill for Bernie from there. He would be destroyed in the suburbs.

Bernie did better in suburban than urban areas in the primaries.

He did best in white rural and exurban areas.

Yeah and Trump did the best in the northeast.
Once people learned who Sanders was and how he isn't just a nice old normal democrat he would sink. He was popular because all people knew was he wasn't crooked like Hillary.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Trump +5, and only downhill for Bernie from there. He would be destroyed in the suburbs.

Bernie did better in suburban than urban areas in the primaries.

He did best in white rural and exurban areas.

Yeah and Trump did the best in the northeast.
Once people learned who Sanders was and how he isn't just a nice old normal democrat he would sink. He was popular because all people knew was he wasn't crooked like Hillary.

Ooh because "Socialism", the boogeyman that doesn't exist.  We weren't going to turn into Venezuela under Bernie.  But some single-payer healthcare with some push-back on these Pharma bros would've been nice.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Trump would win all states except Hawaii and Vermont if Bernie was lucky (sane, totally not a hack)

If Trump sounds sane to you, but not Bernie...then I would suggest visiting a neurologist.

[Badger]

The better question is how would Warren be doing. That.....would be an astronomical lead.

[IceSpear]

LOL at the wildly divergent predictions in this thread.

I think, as of right now, he'd be doing a few points better, simply because the GOP wouldn't have as much time to smear him as the 20+ years they've had with Hillary. I'm not sure whether or not that would hold through election day, particularly since we don't even know the IRL results yet.

[Vega]

He'd be leading almost by 10.

It's not like during the primaries he was some sort of patsy, or nobody knew he called himself a socialist. He still lead by 10+ points, and would probably continue to do so until the Fall where he would lead by 6-8 points and have a solid victory.

He would certainly face attacks on his policy and ideology, but that's arguably better than what Clinton has to somehow turnaround in being labeled (unfairly, in my opinion) a crook, liar, and all around corrupt politician.

Not having the scandal(s) albatross would be good for him too, obviously.

[Tender Branson]

He'd lead by 10% right now and by 15% after the conventions.

No joke.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

with minorities: ±0 to -2
with white women: -2 to -4
with white men: +4 to -2

which would add up to roundabouts +1 to -3

Is this relative to how Hillary is doing right now?

[IceSpear]

He'd lead by 10% right now and by 15% after the conventions.

No joke.

Are you taking into account the Blaxicasians?

[Weiner/Holder]

Democrats made the right decision and for that I'm at least somewhat thankful.

[Tender Branson]

He'd lead by 10% right now and by 15% after the conventions.

No joke.

Are you taking into account the Blaxicasians?

Yes, already accounted for.

Bernie would be roughly tied with Whites, or slightly behind Trump.