@Louis-1988:
I gotta disagree. During the primaries, he was polling much, much better against Trump than Clinton was. And on top of that Bernie doesn't have nearly as much controversy (deserved or not) surrounding him as Hillary. There wouldn't have been any Comey, or Wikileaks trying to sabotage him, and Trump wouldn't have been able to use his "I'm the only candidate who self-funded his own campaign!" or "Your husband is a misogynist and you helped him belittle those women!" schticks against Bernie. Trump had an infinite stockpile of ammunition to use against Hillary that he just wouldn't have had against Sanders.
Instead it would have been the rape essay and the illegitimate child and his socialist ties and a party that doesn't like him. Obviously given Trumps election its possible none of that would have mattered, but he was basically unvetted and unknown.
Clinton beat Sanders by 4 million votes and in most states. She won that contest handily. Anyone saying Sanders would have more easily won doesn't know anything beyond trying to get in an "I told you so", because obviously none of us know anything.
All the conventional politics in the world, decades of study and research and knowledge are out the window on this one and analysts will be going through this one for years.
Even by normal standards though, polls from that far back, before Sanders was put through any real ringer are meaningless by any standard. We had polls yesterday saying Hillary was going to win in a landslide and obviously that didn't happen.
Hell, we don't know if the results would have been different if the election was two weeks ago, before the FBI director smeared her again, and closer to the debates. Or if they'd be different in two weeks when Trump's next inevitable scandal popped up and there was time for the latest non-scandal of email to settle.