Honestly, my favorite resource for much of this is the book How to Measure Anything by Douglas Hubbard. He goes into detail in understanding the value of information and how and why to use Monte Carlo Simulations.
Sanders would have gotten his ass kicked against Trump. I can't make that argument as conclusively as I can the argument that the DNC didn't steal the primary from him, but I personally believe it just as firmly:
* Turnout was lower for both the D's and the R's this cycle. R turnout would not have been lower if the D's had run an avowed socialist. Suburban/exurban voters --- a natural R cohort Clinton actually outperformed with in this cycle --- would have turned out in force for the GOP.
* Sanders policy proposals and the language he uses to talk about it aren't in sync with the white working class (really, any part of the working class); it's "let them eat college tuitions". Unemployed tool & die engineers aren't looking for college subsidies, and they already survive on handouts ("long term disability"). That's why they're angry.
* Sanders did terribly at engaging the African American vote, so much so that insider stories got written about how messed up their African American outreach was. The narrative of this election is that Clinton lost in part because she failed to mobilize Obama's coalition. But Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary with exactly that coalition, so the evidence suggests Sanders would have done even worse with the hand Clinton was dealt.
* Sanders was terribly vulnerable. His supporters like to believe that HRC gave it to him with both barrels during the primary. But she did not: she was a complacent candidate who believed (correctly) in the inevitability of her nomination and (incorrectly) in the inevitability of her election. It is simply a fact that Sanders did not receive a serious vetting during the primary, and to see that, you only have to see what stories didn't come up during the primary:
--- Sanders chaired Senate VA during the Veterans Health Scandal and was on VA during the Walter Reed scandal. Unlike Benghazi, these were real failures of oversight that harmed large numbers of American veterans. Not only that, but Sanders has in part built a Senate career on support for veterans benefits, so the attack ads write themselves. How culpable was Sanders for any of this? Fuck if I know. That's not the point.
--- Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by three men simultaneously. Does that really matter? Almost certainly not. That's not the point.
--- While Trump was starting his real estate "empire" with help from his father, not only was Bernie Sanders not winning victories for the working class, he was collecting employment (in his mid-30s) and stealing electricity from his neighbors. Does that matter? Not to me; to me that makes him more relatable. But that's not the point.
--- Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in Texas. Does that make Sanders an "environmental racist"? Well, in fact, yes it does.
Are all of these things dispositive? No. But they give the lie to the idea that Sanders would have crushed Trump because Clinton had too much baggage to run with.
That disconnect is because the definition of racism has changed over the last 8 years in practice, and since the development of privilege theory and systemic racism in academia ~30 years ago.[0]
Racism used to be something you did if you were white; now it's just "who you are".
Since the civil right movement 50 years ago, white Americans have agreed to a racial compact:
- whites are banned from doing anything overtly racist
- whites are banned from engaging in identity politics (that is, favoring white/Western culture and people over others)
- whites will accept a double-standard that allows other groups to engage in both of these behaviors (and not deem them "racist")
In exchange, blacks and others wouldn't call whites racist unless that compact was explicitly broken. When they did, whites agreed to make the charge stick—you'd lose your job, career, etc. A charge of "racism" was very, very difficult to undo.
IMO, this was all a good thing and worked pretty well.
Basically, that's all changed now—at least on the right, now that all whites are "racist" by definition. The alt-right in particular has agreed not to make charges of racism a deal killer, and in particular, is no longer enforcing that compact. Under the old compact, the alt-right is definitely racist.
Apparently, though, so is half the country now because by the old definition, absolutely, Trump is a racist with his comment about the judge's Mexican heritage, and whites should have made the charge "stick". As Speaker Paul Ryan said "textbook racism". Trump's comment should have—and would have—been disqualifying under the old compact.
IMO some whites have dropped the racial compact because of the development of privilege theory and systemic racism and the frankly "original sin"-like notion that all whites are racist. Who wants that?
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fHGTsZZD8 Book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anything-Intangibles-Busin...