Haven't gone through the whole thread or the original article (tsk tsk, yeah I know) but why didn't the survey also measure the number of Bernie primary voters that didn't vote at all in the general?
Because I'd imagine that + those who voted Trump, 3rd party, a write in candidate were probably a big enough chunk to swing the election.
At the end of the day I don't blame Bernie, dude was a good candidate. But this shit was so visible throughout the entire primary when there was this giant online split between Bernie and Clinton supporters basically making war with each other and no matter who won the primary, there'd be such a rift in the democratic party it could swing the election if it ended up being close. There were plenty of people calling out for unison within the democratic party, but there were also a lot of vocal purity test fights and spite contests that "I'll never vote for your candidate because they are no better than the other side!!" going on during the primary.
People say competition is good to get a better candidate for the general, but it's really not because once you are so mentally entranced against the other primary runner(s), there is a huge mental block you have to overcome to go out and vote for them in the general and a lot of people won't do it.
If Democrats didn't fight among themselves, they'd easily win all these elections. But democrats represent like a half-dozen or dozen different sub-groups who all want different things and if they don't get them they're not going to "fall in line" and vote like republicans do. Not sure how this will ever change. But it'd be nice if the 2020 primary isn't a fucking bloodbath on the democrat side. We really need a single strong candidate that everyone can get behind and not 2 or more who split the party.