No NO
Sec Clinton was a terrible candidate for a gang of reasons all dutifully listed by Perotista ... all true and valid, which accounted for depressed polling numbers. Had she been a "good" candidate, she would have been some +20% favorite over Mr Trump. All of those reasons she was a poor candidate depressed her polling numbers, but still she had a sizeable national polling lead ... that is until Dir Comey re-opened the FBI investigation into emails, at which point her polling numbers plummeted. To analyze the reasons for her failure to win the election without any consideration of the FBI investigation as the most important reason she lost in the final days of the election is dereliction, much akin to Mr Trump not acknowledging the obvious, ergo perotista's analysis reminds me of what Mr Trump does and why reporters continue to ask question over and again ... acknowledge and move on ... too tough for Mr Trump, which I understand since he is a narcissist, but not so easy for me to understand of perotista, since I don't see him as a narcissist, ergo my confusion.
The question is, would she have lost had Dir Comey not re-opened the investigation???? Remember ... the entire campaign, to the last person, thought Mr Trump would not win as late as election day ...
