LogFAQs > #889719399

Rasmoh posted...

For everyone grilling me in this topic, are you all really going to sit here and tell me that it wasn't the consensus among "political experts" that Hillary was anything but a sure thing? She had s***loads of advantages over Trump. The female vote, Hispanic vote, black vote, anti-Trump votes(which far exceed anti-Hillary votes), people who wanted to be part of electing the first female president, decades of political experience, and the backing of almost every major media outlet, university and celebrities. Trump could barely get support from his own party at times.

I'm not arguing that she wasn't also a pretty s***ty candidate, but comparatively speaking the Democrats have no one who carries the political clout that she did.

You are correct, the consensus of the political experts was that Hillary was going to beat Trump.

That doesn't mean that she was the strongest weapon the DNC had. She was the weakest. But compared to Trump, she was overwhelmingly more qualified.

She would have been absolutely demolished if Kasich had the nomination, and no one would have been surprised.

I don't know a single liberal friend who was really excited for her at all, ever. They voted for her because they were liberal and Trump is completely unqualified, but I know that had they put her up against anyone else there would not have been any "well at least she won the popular vote".