Unfortunately for you, we do have a great deal of data on a potential Sanders/Trump match-up and not only does all of it refute your contention that Sanders wouldn’t have won, it points to Sanders winning by a rather large margin.
The RealClearPolitics database contains head-to-head polling going back to July 2015. In those polls — roughly 50 of them — Trump only outpolled Sanders six times. In only 2 of those polls did Trump manage a win beyond the margin of error. Trump’s last win against Sanders was a one-point win in a USA Today poll from back in late Jan./early Feb. From mid-February forward, Sanders won every poll and all but three of those polls were by double digits, sometimes by as much as 24%. In May, the last month in which Sanders was included in the head-to-heads, he was rolling right over Trump. In that same month, the Clinton vs. Trump polling was already showing what would eventually happen in the general; Clinton was losing to Trump in 4 of the 10 polls and only beating him above the margin of error in three of them.
Clinton lost the election in the Rust Belt and she didn’t lose there because a lot of Democratic voters shifted to Trump (though some did). She lost it because, faced with a Wall-Street-backed, tone-deaf “free trader” horror show like Clinton as the nominee, large numbers of regularly Democratic voters simply stayed home. And — what a shock — these shortfalls occurred in Sanders’ key demographics. White folks, young folks, Democrat-leaning independents, etc. What’s particularly unfortunate about this is that it was not only entirely predictable but was present in the polling at the time. While, during the primaries, an overwhelming majority of likely Democratic voters said they’d vote for either Clinton or Sanders in the general, regardless of who won the primaries, a much larger segment of Sanders voters said they wouldn’t vote for Clinton. That was present in the polling going all the way back into late 2015 (and was a subject about which I wrote several times over the course of the primary season). That this is exactly what played out in the general casts a rather dim light on your baseless claim that Democratic voters would have stayed home had Sanders been the candidate. People spent months telling pollsters what they’d do, then they did exactly that and if Sanders had been the candidate, there’s no reason at all to suspect they wouldn’t have done the same.
In a little-noticed footnote to this matter, a privately-commissioned Gravis poll was conducted two days prior to the general election, asking likely voters about a potential Sanders/Trump match. Sanders won by 12% — comparable with the margins he’d been polling through most of the primaries.
And, of course, there’s plenty of other data of this nature but all of it — every scrap of it — points to the same conclusion. The notion that Sanders would have somehow lost is an extraordinary claim, one you can’t support with anything, which is why you’re forced to fall back on that litany of smears and misrepresentations manufactured by Clintonites in the campaign and (mostly) in the press.
There are countless other problems with your article. Sanders’ comment about Clinton being “unqualified” to be president occurred in response to a Clinton campaign strategy of portraying him as unqualified; despite the hysterical Clintonite squealing in the press, Sanders in fact gave the correct answer about breaking up the banks (the institutions would have to decide how to do that themselves); Sanders’ tax returns were a non-issue the Clintonites demagogued — as a member of the Senate, he’s filed publicly available financial disclosures every year that contain all of that info (and Clinton, who had to do the same when in the Senate, knew it); there is no meaningful “popular vote” in a primary/caucus season — qaving that around, as you do more than once, betrays a pretty basic misunderstanding of how such things work; Sanders did have a “black problem” in the primaries. He had a problem with old black people, which was really just a problem with old people generally. Sanders won young black voters overwhelmingly. He, in fact, claimed overwhelming victory among the youth vote in every demographic. And so on, into infinity.
That last point is one worth a little more attention as I wrap up here. The Sandersites you so disdain through your every line here are, in fact, the future of the Democratic party. Before Clinton had ever officially announced she was running, she was already the increasingly-distant past — the unprincipled, bought-and-paid-for conservative corporate “Democrats” — that voters already thought they’d already rejected years ago. I’m sorry you backed a loser but if you had paid any attention beyond the Clintonite headlines that seem to have been your sole source for what was happening in this campaign, the fact that she was a loser was readily apparent (I called the likely result of a Clinton/Trump race long before the primary season was over). Because of you — because you couldn’t be bothered — those of us who did pay attention and who got it right are now going to suffer under the next four years the same as everyone else. But I suspect many of us aren’t going to quietly suck up this kind of abuse from those of you who did this to us. You’ve bequeathed us a legacy of ashes. Enjoy.