One thing that I feel is missing from all the discussions about Hillary's loss is straightforward historical context, starting with numbers. Most comparisons stop at 2012. Looking further back reveals extremely strong patterns, which have reinforced themselves in 2016.
Here’s a disclaimer, lest this diary be misunderstood as “trying to excuse Hillary” etc.: once again, Hillary’s campaign leadership had erred towards complacency and taking their eyes off the ball. It also happened in 2008, and in the 2016 primaries vs. a textbook-definition “fringe candidate” (another disclaimer: I voted for Bernie, so this is not to disparage him in any way), a challenger who was allowed to drag the primary battle, with a huge following, all the way to the convention, ultimately affecting the General election as well. In the General itself, anti-Hillary media bias was a given, and a nasty media-bolstered “October Surprise” was not out of the realm of possibilities, so there wasn’t a case for turning on cruise-control as was done from some point in October onwards, and in particular for spending efforts on “offense states” in the South and Southwest, and not not nearly enough on defending the North.
This recurring pattern of poor campaign management, cannot have at least something to do with the candidate herself, as someone once said: “The buck stops here” (I will refer to that particular someone again later on).
That said… this diary will try to counter the notion, misguided IMHO, that Hillary’s overall performance was “Historically weak”, that the candidate herself was historically flawed, or the silly (of course) mainstream-media notion that it all boils down to some moral failure in neglecting the (White, wink wink) working class concerns.
To do that, it’s enough to look at vote totals of past Presidential elections, going back all the way to Roosevelt. The patterns are unmistakable.