>Go on then: if HRC is the worst/widely disliked etc etc... then what's your explanation for her comprehensive win in the primaries?


I'm really amazed you're asking this.

First, it is royally clear that the DNC did everything they could to pave her way to victory. And yet she stumbled with some embarrassing losses and narrow victories in certain states.

There is another way of looking at it...how does a self-described socialist (Sanders) with very limited achievements in the Senate, and with no real foreign policy experience (beyond saying, "I opposed the Iraq war") manage to at least compete admirably? Especially when, a year ago, he was so far behind?

She has the second highest "strongly unfavorable" rating of any nominee/presumptive nominee since the statistic was born in the late 1970's. And it's not just Republicans - a growing number of Democrats and independents do not like her and do not trust her.

Her credibility was seriously, seriously damaged ever further by the statements from the FBI yesterday. There are now even more compelling arguments that she is careless, incompetent, dishonest, and believes she is above the law. If I were a Democrat, I'd be embarrassed.

She won the primaries because the DNC saw to it that she had no competition. She won the primaries because the DNC mistakes "moral imperative" with "finding the right person for the job".