Toss in the wikileaked document from the Podesta e-mails where the Clinton campaign talks about a "Pied-Piper Candidate" and specifically mentions Donald Trump.
I find it interesting that the predicted popular vote in this forecast by Nate Silver is fairly close to how the actual popular vote turned out. Sure, that's purely conjecture.
On the other hand, Clinton was so sure she would win the election that she didn't have a concession speech written!
We know that the Democratic primary process was rigged between Wikileaks and the Class Action lawsuit against the DNC. Hell, it's pretty much common knowledge that Clinton was supposed to have been the Democratic "nominee" since 2015 and that Sanders was an inconvenience to the process.
The problem is that you've got to wonder when a campaign is based upon "It's her turn" from a person with a serious sense of entitlement. Toss in that person is running a vanity campaign.
And the Candidate in question is one of the most unpopular candidates ever (see 2008 Michigan Primary results).
I mean who is the more likely candidate to try and rig the election:
1) the person who appears not to give a fuck?
2) The person who feels so entitled to the position that she shuts out any competition?
Of course Trump was exonerated he had no intent to win the election.
It's easy to divert attention away by screaming "the Russians meddled in the election". On the other hand, it's a lot more questionable when the evidence points to someone thinking they can rig the election to win.
So, I think that's the real line of inquiry if people want to keep trying to figure out what went wrong: look at the person who had a desire and a motive to cheat.
- BuzzFeed’s Controversial Cohen Story Raises Question: Did Trump Want to Be President?
- The Dismissed DNC Fraud Lawsuit Explained
- Vote-Rigging Suit Against DNC Dropped, Mostly Because the DNC Can’t Rig Much of Anything
- Hillary Clinton says she didn't prepare concession speech because she was convinced she would win