>>This is a ridiculous and absurd conclusion.
And that is a pompous retort completely devoid of content.
It's perfectly clear: if HRC is as vile or widely hated as some like to portray: how come she kept winning the popular vote in the Primaries?
Weren't you living in New York at the time? In NY HRC scored 58% of the popular vote. How did that happen? Where you are now she got 55.6% of the popular vote. How did that happen?
Her final tally was 55.5% of the popular vote, not including the superdelegates. How did that happen if she's the worst and so disliked?
My observation is that IF what you say about her is true, then surely her success is because too many people who share your viewpoint, failed to participate. Which is a truism, surely.
Go on then: if HRC is the worst/widely disliked etc etc... then what's your explanation for her comprehensive win in the primaries?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
