The reason Trump won the election is because the electorate shrunk in some sectors, but grew in others. The overall rate of turnout appears to have been 56.9% — this could fluctuate some as additional votes trickle in. As such, the rate of voter participation actually increased from 2012, when 54.9% turned out.

In what sectors of the electorate did turnout increase?

Places like Luzerne County, Pennsylvania:

And Philadelphia county:

And Staten Island:

and even Brooklyn!

By contrast, Trump’s totals decreased in some traditionally Republican areas where his cultural stylings were less… appreciated. Such as Dallas:

And of course, Utah. (Mormons don’t really like Trump)

Trump evidently had far greater appeal among a certain type of Republican-leaning voter—mostly irreligious, non-ideological, cultural conservatives—than Romney ever could have dreamed of garnering.

So why is this relevant to Sanders’ theoretical prospects against Trump? Not because he would’ve siphoned away vast swaths of Trump voters — although that certainly would’ve happened in some measure — but because he would’ve animated segments of the electorate that simply declined to vote. How about ideological progressives? They’re not an astoundingly huge cohort — maybe something like 6% of the electorate? But they still vote reliably for candidates they perceive as advancing their interests. They in large part did not see Hillary as likely to advance their interests. She campaigned in the general election principally as a friend to billionaires, military chieftains, and neoconservatives. This was always a tremendously stupid strategy, because in doing so she alienated more voters than she attracted. (In fact, that she chose such a strategy despite the obvious electoral downsides demonstrated that Hillary was a true, committed zealot — even if it cost her politically, she’d cater to discredited war hawks and decadent oligarchs, while shunning the populist Left.)

Sanders would’ve mobilized the youth vote and the ideological progressive vote to a far greater degree than Hillary ever could. At the very least this would have won him Wisconsin, which Trump took by a small margin due to dramatic increases in rural voter turnout.

Recall, Sanders performed extremely well among rural voters compared to Hillary in the Democratic primary. He won the Wisconsin primary by 14% points; you can be sure that a critical mass of those voters opted not to vote for Hillary, thus handing the state to Trump. (Obama also blew out Hillary in the 2008 Wisconsin primary.) Unsurprisingly, Sanders also won the Michigan primary (defying the polls, which called that race spectacularly wrong) and leveled a compelling economic message tailored to the economic anxieties of voters in that state. I have almost zero doubt that propelled by increased turnout among youth, rural, and progressive voters, Sanders would have won both Michigan and Wisconsin.

Of course, these are counter-factuals and can’t ever be proven or disproven. But there were so many lies told about Hillary’s supposed “electability” that all of that should be thrown out the window. Foremost among the lies was Hillary’s alleged strength among black voters. What a total deception. Black voter turnout absolutely plummeted virtually everywhere in the country, including in Flint, Detroit, and Milwaukee, which allowed Trump to score narrow wins in MI and WI. I believe Sanders would have vastly outperformed Hillary among black voters, especially young black voters who spent the past 1.5 years hearing about how corrupt Hillary was, and who (rightly, in my view) determined that she was not worthy of their vote.

Sanders also would have outperformed Hillary among black voters for the same reasons he would’ve outperformed her among all voters: she was a corrupt, decadent, cold, militaristic avatar of a failed status quo who had no argument for her candidacy other than “TRUMP! BAD!!!!” — this despite seeking the presidency for literally 10 years. (Or maybe it’s 40 years?)

Sanders would have outperformed Hillary because he was not under felony criminal investigation by the FBI between July 10, 2015 and July 5, 2016, and then again from October 28, 2016 to November 6, 2016. That’s not a problem that Sanders would have had to worry about. Trump couldn’t have called him “Crooked Bernie” because he’s not really done anything crooked over the course of his career, while Hillary and Bill have done so much that its full scope can barely be chronicled.

Sanders also didn’t have a multi-national, quasi-governmental “Foundation” in operation while he served as the nation’s top diplomat. That’s partly because Sanders never served as Secretary of State, and partly because he he probably would never have engaged in such fraudulent, rapacious activity.

In my travels across Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina over the past few weeks, I’m not exaggerating when I say that I didn’t meet a single person under 30 who could be described as “enthusiastic” about Hillary. Screaming “TRUMP BAD! BAD BAD BAD!” just isn’t enough to turn out those voters. They need an affirmative program. Sanders had just that. He would’ve been seen as a clean break from the status quo despite running on the Democratic ticket. He would’ve been seen as a friend to Obama while improving on his legacy, which would’ve appealed to some black voters. He would’ve been a “change agent.” Because Hillary is so egotistical and arrogant, she decided to run knowing full well that “change agent” would be the absolute last thing on voters’ minds when they assessed her candidacy. So instead, Trump was permitted to usurp that role. And it worked.

In sum, here are the states and localities that I think Sanders would have definitely won convincingly against Trump, which Hillary either lost or barely won:

Michigan

Wisconsin

New Hampshire

Minnesota

Maine’s second congressional district

Colorado

I think Sanders would have probably won the following states:

Pennsylvania

The following states would’ve been a little tougher, but Sanders would’ve been competitive and maybe even lightly favored:

Nevada

North Carolina

Virginia

Florida

That would’ve been enough. We can never say with any certainty because of the counter-factual problem, but I’m highly confident that Sanders would have defeated Trump. Remember, he consistently got more popular over the course of the Democratic primary contest as more voters became acquainted with him, while Hillary became increasingly less popular as she received sustained exposure. She is an unappealing person in every way, and voters didn’t like what they saw.

Sanders also would have had an incredible “ground game,” comprised of the full breadth of the progressive movement’s activist base — a highly organized set who would’ve spent months registering voters, and then got them out to the polls. “Online Activism” on Sanders’ behalf would’ve been dominant, whereas Trump somehow prevailed in that category versus Hillary. Because progressive activists were so dispirited by the fixed and fraudulent Democratic primary process, they were demobilized. You can bet that they would’ve been incredibly mobilized for Bernie. (Hillary didn’t even have a robust “ground game.” That was another lie. Trump’s was more robust; his huge rallies allowed for massive swaths of data to be collected, which was then funneled into successful “Get Out the Vote” efforts. Remember Bernie’s huge rallies? Yes, those mattered.)

Bernie would’ve won. Joe Biden would’ve probably won. Elizabeth Warren would’ve probably won. Hell, even Martin O’Malley would’ve probably won. The reason Hillary lost was because she was a remarkably weak candidate whom the Democratic establishment insisted on nominating anyhow, despite being keenly cognizant of her severe flaws. Those who enabled her deserve permanent censure for the decision. They must face consequences.