Here it is:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Sanders vs Trump
Average: +13.4
CNN: +16
IBD-TIPP: +12
USA Today: +15
GWU: +10
Fox: +14
And you left out the Rasmussen poll in which Clinton LOSES to Trump:
Clinton vs Trump
Rasmussen: Trump +2
And you left out Clinton's average:
Sanders vs Trump: Sanders average +13.4
Clinton vs Trump: Clinton average +6.5
Sanders has been beating Trump by much bigger margins than Clinton in all polls I've seen since January. He is the much surer bet against Trump than Clinton is.
In addition, she has very high negatives on trustworthiness and favorability, while Sanders has very high positives, and that, too, has been consistent over time.
You might want to go back to saying that national matchups are "meaningless" until your bought-and-paid-for "superdelegates" can eliminate the best Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders, and go with their gold-plated, Goldman-Sachs-paid for Hillary Clinton, who is loathed by independents (40% of the electorate) and will drive the young, wholesale, from the Democratic Party.
Up to you, but I think, when polls have been screaming at us for months that Clinton is vulnerable to Trump, and that Sanders is a much better candidate for the GE, and looking at the false picture we get of Clinton's candidacy due to, a) the "closed" Dem primaries, and b) the stacked advantages Clinton has had within the Democratic Party, we ought to look at reality and not be fooled by our own inner "unicorns and ponies."
When the Clinton campaign uses "unicorns and ponies" to describe a $15 minimum wage and free public college tuition, they shouldn't wonder why so many people heartily support Sanders and oppose Clinton. Clinton seems to be clueless about what the lives of most Americans are like these days.
= new reply since forum marked as read