No she shouldn't. Presidential elections are decided in a few select states, and she didn't win enough of those states.
She won half of those states, he won the other half. The problem--as has been mentioned countless fucking times itt alone--was with just
three of those few select states and then only within certain key counties within those three states and then only by teeny weenie tiny little miniscule percentages of votes within those key counties, such that NO CANDIDATE EVER could have done anything about them. Literally a candidate sneezing (and thus indicating ill health) could have tipped those tiny scales.
What evidently tipped those handful of counties and that 0.006% voting differential had to do with (1) racism (nothing Clinton could have done anything about, other than courted racism as well), (2) the Comey effect (nothing Clinton could have done anything about, since it was an unprecedented choice made by an FBI director at a crucial point in the election cycle and ironically exonerated her, but people are idiots and they mistook it instead for condemnation and voted accordingly), (3) these three states were considered a "lock" for Clinton, so Dems in those states didn't bother voting, (4) Trump, (as Axulus aptly demonstrated) was considered by Dems to be too terrible a candidate for ANYONE to actually vote for, so Dems in those states didn't bother to vote (5) the still unknown effect of a massive covert propaganda campaign by the Russians who specifically targeted two of those key states, (6) the lasting effects of a bitterly divisive and completely unnecessary civil war within the Democratic party, thanks entirely to an outsider who was defeated
in March, but for egotistical reasons refused to leave the stage, thus escalating the divisiveness and (equally fueled by GOP and Russians alike) did enough damage to her campaign to have accounted for the tiny percentage shift in those blue states
all on their own. Etc; etc., etc.
And yes, of course, there were those who just irrationally hated women generally and her personally and bought the equivocation lie that she and Trump were the same, or that she was "establishment" (which really just means "qualified for the job") and/or a "corporate whore" based on no legitimate argument or evidence whatsoever other than "speeches" she was paid for (out of office) that not a single person can show in any way caused her to "pay for play" at any point.
ALL of it factored in, no doubt, but very clearly--and most importantly--is the fact that IN SPITE OF ALL OF THAT she still won the popular vote by several million AND we now have an even clearer picture of the percentage of registered voters who, for various non-partisan reasons did not manage to cast a vote, making Clinton's
preference percentage firmly jump into landslide territory (55% to Trump's 46%) and would have meant she beat the record holder--Obama in 2008--by a close margin.
Which all proves that Clinton was overwhelmingly the preferred candidate and not in a "hold your nose and vote" way that the fringe around here alway try to assert like they represent the mainstream. The overwhelming majority of Democrats (the only one's that fucking matter) WANTED HILLARY TO BE PRESIDENT.
Even now, at this point, her approval among Dems (and Dem-leaning Independents) is around 89%.
So, once again and for auld lang syne, ALL of this proves that people here are NOT reflective of the majority of Dems nor present any accurate interpretation of what actually happened. It's emotional and biased, but disproved by the actual facts.
