So tell me again where we went "wrong".

[Martin Eden]

108. The entire thrust of your OP is there was nothing wrong with our candidate or message

Objecting to my use of the word "perfect" is a quibble; if I had used a different word, the gist of my argument would have changed imperceptibly. It is entirely reasonable to conclude you are insisting there was nothing wrong with our candidate or message to the voters.

Your argument that voters outside DU are unaware of TPP or Bill's signing of NAFTA or Hillary's vote for the Iraq war or her big speaking fees from Wall Street simply does not hold water. Some voters may be entirely ignorant of all these things, but many others are not.

Trump's main attack strategy was to blame the loss of jobs on foreign trade deals supported by the Clintons and to blame the horrific fiasco in Iraq & Syria (the rise of ISIS) on Obama and Hillary Clinton. This was very evident in the televised debates viewed by millions of voters. If Hillary, during the rush to war in 2002, had stood up and spoke truth to power and provided strong Democratic leadership against the lies and the Bush neocon agenda, she would have been in a much stronger position in the debates and in this election. As it was, one of her biggest qualifications -- foreign policy credentials -- became less of an asset and an actual liability in the minds of many voters.

The answer to your last question is a qualified yes. Hillary Clinton was associated with trade deals blamed for the loss of manufacturing jobs as well as the Washington establishment which has not done a good job of representing the interests of people whose standard of living has declined. That was the perception, not entirely unfounded. Had she taken strong positions against the trade deals since she first came to Washington and been a leader against the Iraq war, I believe she probably would have won back in 2008 or would now be the president elect.