But stopping short at "she didn't win because she was a shitty candidate" just doesn't do it. Not when she actually won by more than 3 million votes. Not when the FBI chief dropped a flaming bag of poop on the door on Oct. 28. Not when Vladimir Putin was literally feeding people the weirdest talking points about our girl ever and actively organizing within the American electoral process.
Or, as FiveThirtyEight put it:
Campaigns probably don't have that much impact in presidential elections. Clinton's campaign made some tactical errors but these likely weren't enough to cost her the electoral college, especially given that she lost states such as Pennsylvania and Florida where she had campaigned extensively.
But I am a voter who tends to reset. I tend to whoosh the slate clean, as I did in 2012 to support Clinton, who I despised after 2008, after she fought and hung on, seemingly threatening a big D win and a vital one at that. (The truth is, Hillary had a far more valid argument for staying in than Bernie did--the math in that race was actually darned close, and it was not out of the realm of possibility considering the potential pull of unpledged delegates.)
I believe in starting over. And, my friends, you cannot deny the fundraising numbers. Bernie Sanders does not apparently suffer an "enthusiasm gap."
There is, in fact, only one candidate so far I wish would walk the plank. The way I see it, Barry, this is the time to let these people woo me. And Bernie comes at this from a more powerful position than before. So I might be woo'd, indeed. However, I think that Kamala Harris broad has some pretty good skills as well.
We'll just see how this goes.
Aren't you glad this one wasn't about shitting?