If what you're suggesting made sense, Mr. Trump would also have no chance. He needs lots of people that rejected him in the primaries to now vote for him in the general.
And yet the guy who was rejected overwhelmingly, by way more people than rejected Trump, by everyone pretty much, can somehow win?
You are presuming that because they didn't vote for Trump in the primary, they won't vote for him in the general either, and that's definitely not how it works. The media tards kept saying that until I wanted to punch them in the throat. A vote for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or whoever is just that - a vote for them. It's not necessarily a vote against Trump, any more than a vote for Trump was a vote against any of the rest of them. Every single election, people who voted for someone else in the primary come together and vote for the nominee who wasn't their first choice.
You may remember that there were 12 candidates in the beginning, and I'd have to look but I don't believe Trump won any of those primaries with more than 50%. It would have been almost impossible for him to do so, given the number of candidates in the field. Note, however, that when it was down to a more manageable three candidates Trump had no problem pulling over 50%.
It's entirely possible - probable, actually - that many Democrats will vote for Trump in the general. It's way more unlikely that Republican voters will snub Trump in favor of Hillary. In short, Trump can pull from both parties; Hillary cannot.
That said, it's not for nothing that even recent polls have Mr. Kasich beating Mrs. Clinton soundly while she beats Mr. Trump soundly.
Polls schmolls. The polls have been so far off from actuality that they're worthless. They're not even a good indicator this election. I admit I get vaguely excited when polls show Trump and Shrill in a dead heat, but when they show her leading by a few points I'm like, meh, because they don't mean anything, especially this far out. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio were supposed to be the guys, according to the early polls. Well, we see how that turned out in reality.
Do you disagree with the many people that think Mr. Sanders would have a better chance of beating Mr. Trump than Mrs. Clinton does?
Not necessarily - she does have the machine behind her, after all. But if it weren't for the super delegates, which is just a fat load of bull####, they would be neck and neck. And after yesterday, it's quite likely they'd have gone to a brokered convention, or whatever Democrats do when neither candidate hits the number - cage match, who knows. In that case, yes, Bernie would have a nice shot at being the nominee. Mrs. Clinton, as you pointed out, is just that bad.
Where you're going awry with this is you're living by the polls and forgetting the real humans behind them. Both the pollers and the ones being polled. I don't know if you're just wishful thinking because you like Hillary or dislike Trump, but your predictions aren't based on logic, nor are they based on anything real. Which is unusual for you, and why I'm wondering about the Lizard People. The other reason may be because you're listening to the media too much, and they are batting a thousand on the being wrong front. I think we can safely say that, in this election, they don't know John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt.