Hillary graciously absolving herself of any responsibility

[Montmorency]

The electoral system being responsible for her defeat is not an objective fact, like every other hypothetical scenario. Both candidates wold have launched completely different campaigns and many more voters would be encouraged to vote, from Republicans in California to Democrats in Texas.

That's true, we would have to construct an entirely different American history and world history.

Trump's coverage was only marginally larger than Hillary's.

Like Clinton's coverage was only marginally more than Sanders'? I think we're using a different value of the word.

I never claimed that all those factors had zero effect. Quite the contrary, I'm just laughing at Hillary's childish inability to assume responsibility.

In the sense of identifying the "correct" factors, or in the sense that the virtuous thing to do would be to take all responsibility in the face of the public (i.e. crucify herself)? The former we're debating here, but the latter - why should she do that? Should anyone?

She's free to do whatever she wants. But if she fails to logically address the issues with her promises, capacities and campaign, then she should expect her book to be criticized. Nothing more.

I don't disagree. But many of the 'ancestral' criticisms have long seemed to be less to do with what Clinton does or says, but the idea, the icon, of Hillary Clinton. And that's unhealthy IMO.

Why should people vote for me, instead of why shouldn't people vote for me.

If she asked the first one she could have had an actual campaign, instead of spending millions persuading people she's not Donald Trump.

I will build the wall. I will defeat ISIS. I will provide jobs. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will provide free education, raise minimum wage, fight Wall Street and ensure all Americans have healthcare. - simple, effective, easy to understand.

I will ask Wall Street to be nicer, I will think strongly about pipelines and free trade deals, I will look at all possible options of dealing with ISIS and try to do something about lower/middle classes. - double speak, no substance, no point, no message. With her baggage, it was never gonna work. Barely at the end of one of the worst recessions in recent history and the sternest thing you can say about Wall Street is "basically, cut it out"??? And you want middle class votes?

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her. She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

And she still doesn't understand, looking for reasons why didn't people vote for her. Because you didn't offer them a reason to, only a reason to vote against your opponents.

If people, especially conservatives, already hated Hillary Clinton, I don't think adopting more left-wing positions would have changed their minds.

You have to keep in mind that policies - specific policies - are largely irrelevant to campaigns. The image is what matters. And even with her poor image, Clinton pulled in at least an average result. To diminish this, you would have to argue that Trump was especially hurt by his own actions, rather than helped. The latter is less sanguine to imagine, but it's probably the case. Merely dismissing Trump as a "bad" candidate is to make a similar mistake as you accuse Clinton and the liberal establishment of making.

So while each of us might want to a various extent different, more left-wing policy prescriptions to have been incorporated into her platform, there's no reason to believe it would have helped rather than hindered her actual election performance.

She was overconfident and arrogant, more worried about not saying something wrong than saying something right. Her VP pick, for God's sake. No personality at all.

I agree, but I don't think she is arrogant, just too politically correct in her thinking. By politically correct, I mean that she didn't want to consider and vocalize the worst case that Trump was actually an electoral match for her, because if true (and the polls showed it to be true) it would oblige her to really examine and polemicize how we as a country have to measure and handle the "deplorable" element of the electorate. If the worst of America is a huge demographic and really really bad after all, it shatters American exceptionalism, which the Clintons are strong believers in.

Let's face it, if she was facing anyone other than Donald Trump, it would have been a landslide loss for her.

Definitely disagree. There were certainly no exciting contrasts between the generic Republican candidates and Clinton herself. Trump's advantage was motivating non-voters and conservative independents - the respective party bases fell in line otherwise.