well, it suggests that there are some republicans that would prefer sanders to the candidates in their own field. yet, sanders is - by anybody's admission - the most liberal person in washington. wtf?
well, that's just it. you can partition the republican party into a few different components. you've got the religious right that's socially conservative. you've got the upper crust that's concerned about low taxes. these are what people think of as republicans, and compose the bulk of the republican base. but, you've also got a more than measurable, in fact sizable, minority of right-libertarians that prefer the republican party because they see it as being less invasive on civil liberties. the language is confusing and contentious, but these people are ideological liberals.
so, it's because he's so liberal, rather than despite it. and, this is upending all the conventional wisdom of the reagan era, which clinton is so intrinsically woven into. she's spent her whole life trying to appeal to the silent majority of reagan democrats - what the spectrum delusionally calls "moderates". but, they're all dead now. and, what's coming up in their place is a really starkly libertarian electorate, attached to both parties.
if we get nothing else from sanders, take heed of the following lesson: you're going to have to be liberal and proud of it to win an election in a predominantly x/y voting reality. and, sanders may consequently be simultaneously ahead of his time and stuck in the past. unstuck in time, maybe, even.
it's as simple as that right-libertarians prefer him over cruz or trump. and, it's easy to see why, if you think about it for a second.