No, but you also can't assume that Bernie would have turned more non-voters into voters than voters he would have turned into non-voters. It's hard to really quantify any sort of data from a hypothetical situation. A lot of non-voters might say they would have voted if Bernie was the nominee, but who knows if they actually would have? A lot of voters might say that they would have still voted if Bernie was the nominee, but who knows if they actually would have? Some might say they'd have switched their vote from Hillary to Trump or from Trump to Bernie had the nominee been different, but who knows? Because it's easier to make a hypothetical decision than an actual decision. And even if they liked Bernie back in March when they voted in the primaries, who knows if their opinion would not have changed when Bernie finally had some mud slung at him? Who knows what gaffes he may have had?

There's no intellectually honest way to judge what happened versus what would have happened because there are just too many variables to consider. So saying "Bernie would have won" is just as stupid as saying "Bernie would have still lost." The only intellectually honest thing we can say is "We have no actual idea."

And to go even further, Michael Bloomberg had said he'd have run as an independent if it came down to Bernie vs. Trump. If he followed through, it'd be impossible to tell how much he'd pull from either side, plus he'd almost certainly take New York and possibly New Jersey off the table for Bernie, which would have thrown the election to the House and Trump would still have been elected. Just another unquanitifiable variable to speculate baselessley about.