2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Lost Because ... [View all]quaker bill
(8,237 posts)Hillary ran a fine campaign. Since 2008, whenever pressed, I have stated that Hillary was good for 48% of the vote, if she did everything just right. She got +/-48.1% and she won the popular vote. She did this in the face of all the above adverse circumstances you list.
My point since 2008 has been that after 22 of the 30 years of clearly unjust "scorn and ridicule", these results for Hillary were already fully priced in. Hillary could optimize her performance and get to the full 48%, or fail to do so and ring up just 45 to 46%.
The map was a problem, but it was a blast from the past, say the 1980s, but with the demographic twist of vastly more "D" leaning Hispanics in the desert SW. It was a DLC map the unfortunate and unexpected tiny losses in PA, MI, and WI. Without this, the map was a winner.
One can sit here and second guess "what if Bernie?", "what if Joe Biden?", "what if Martin O'Malley?". All that is pointless. Had it been any other candidate, Trump would have adjusted to a different approach which may or may not have changed the outcome. It is impossible to predict the results of an experiment that was never run.