> Clinton didn't do the work needed to win, flat out.
I might buy this. Maybe. But she's a policy wonk in a time where "TV Charisma" matters more than competence.
> The DNC didn't run a solid primary process either.
That's a Russian shill talking point. Please don't promulgate it.
The DNC ran a bog standard primary process. Bitch if you will, but Bernie was a carpetbagger and is NOT a Democrat. Hilary cashed in her name recognition on Super Tuesday and ran the system in the New York primary.
People forget--Bernie wasn't winning. People liked his message, but Hilary was getting the votes. If you're the underdog, it's not enough to keep things close--you have to win and do so with some extra margin.
Now, if you want to slag the MEDIA for their craptastic coverage of the whole primary process, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you. We have Trump AND Hilary because the media is too damn cowardly to actually slag politicians and stick to their guns.
And, for those of you keeping score, have the Berniebros gotten the primary law changed in New York yet? Or broken up the Super Tuesday chunk which gives a bunch of states not going Democratic too much power over the primary process? Apparently it doesn't matter enough for the Berniebros to get off their asses and CHANGE THINGS.
The fact that nobody else on the Democratic side wanted to run was a function of facing Hilary AND then facing the Worst period Congress period Ever period. Who in their right mind wants that job?
