6 million fewer Democrats voted in 2016...

[Anomalocaris]

Look, Clinton lost because:

1. She did not offer any thing other than she was not trump.   That to many people means more of Obama.  As it happens, an Obama without a republican congress is just about the best plausible thing that can happen to this deeply debased country.  But the reality is much of electorate, under relentless GOP propaganda, does not see it this way.  And politics is about knowing how people feel.

2. Real sound economic policy is way beyond the education or comprehension of precisely the segments of the uneducated population most angry at the economic situation.   She failed to provide the basic necessity of successful politics in any democracy - bribery plus smoke and mirrors for the lowest of electorate.

2. She so consistently outpolled trump those who disliked her less than trump didn't feel they had to actually vote in her favor to keep trump out.

[Jehanne]

And, not to mention, the White House needs at least one sexual predator in the Oval Office every few decades.

[Anomalocaris]

And the fact that trump probably surpassed any other candidate in America history in how freely he was willing to bribe not only the basket of the most deplorables, but also the baskets of clueless, baskets of debased, and basket of those who has no detectable personal virtue, but feels entitled merely for being born American, particularly born white. He also likely surpassed any other candidate in his ignorance of just how much the bribes would cost.

[John V]

I am a just-shy 50 white dude, and my wife and I, and our oldest daughter and son, all voted for Hillary.  What the hell is going on with the US?!

I'm an over-50 white dude, my wife and I voted Trump, and our oldest daughter voted Johnson for pres, Republican for the rest of the races.

What's going on in the US? People have differences of opinion, that's all.

[Divinity]

A lot of Dems didn't vote because the DNC was brazenly stupid. They showed bias to a candidate that was going to win the nomination without their help. And a lot of Dems took it as the system being rigged.

[Chad32]

A lot of Dems didn't vote because the DNC was brazenly stupid.  They showed bias to a candidate that was going to win the nomination without their help.  And a lot of Dems took it as the system being rigged.

Really? She almost lost with their help. If the DNC hadn't helped her, and the superdelegates didn't decide to go with her from the start, how exactly was she going to win? He took the hard road by not taking rich money, had the DNC pushing him away, and still kept from getting mathematically eliminated.

[Mister Agenda]

I was tempted to skip voting on the election, I'll admit that.  Mostly because I have a fairly busy life and having to stand in line for 3 hours to vote wasn't exactly fun.  I remember before, back in 2012, the wait to vote was maybe an hour.  In 2008, it was like 10 minutes.  When I hear pundits talk about voter supression, I kinda wonder if this is what they mean: making voting prohibitively time consuming.  Truth is, I can see people with medical issues or with children to deal with or busy lives in general not having the time to vote.

The historical reasons for holding the election on a Tuesday are obsolete. Today it has the effect of suppressing the vote of the working class, a group that is a majority POC (with a very large white minority). As soon as the Democrats get sufficient power again, they should change it to Saturday.

[Divinity]

Really? She almost lost with their help. If the DNC hadn't helped her, and the superdelegates didn't decide to go with her from the start, how exactly was she going to win? He took the hard road by not taking rich money, had the DNC pushing him away, and still kept from getting mathematically eliminated.

We must have different definitions of 'almost lost'  Nothing the DNC did actually helped her.  It didn't sway voters in the least.  Do you really think potential Bernie voters were swayed by the superdelegates?  They weren't.  If anything it made them fight harder.  It was practically a foregone conclusion that Hillary was going to be the nominee barring her being put in jail.  (Which was never going to happen anyway).  The perception is that Superdelegates helped her.  But if that's the case... Obama wouldn't have been President last time around.  Obama was down in the Superdelegate count too.

[Chad32]

Really? She almost lost with their help. If the DNC hadn't helped her, and the superdelegates didn't decide to go with her from the start, how exactly was she going to win? He took the hard road by not taking rich money, had the DNC pushing him away, and still kept from getting mathematically eliminated.

We must have different definitions of 'almost lost'  Nothing the DNC did actually helped her.  It didn't sway voters in the least.  Do you really think potential Bernie voters were swayed by the superdelegates?  They weren't.  If anything it made them fight harder.  It was practically a foregone conclusion that Hillary was going to be the nominee barring her being put in jail.  (Which was never going to happen anyway).  The perception is that Superdelegates helped her.  But if that's the case... Obama wouldn't have been President last time around.  Obama was down in the Superdelegate count too.

They had a media blackout on Bernie. They set up at least some of the democratic debates on Saturday night, which is a poor night to expect people to sit at home and watch a debate. They made it harder for independents to vote on the election. There's evidence that Hillary was given questions prior to debates, when Bernie wasn't. The DNC did things that helped stifle Bernie. I consider the fact that he was never mathematically eliminated as being close to winning. Maybe you're right, and we do have different definitions of "almost lost/won", but the DNC was helping Hillary.

The fact is, Bernie has high favorables, and Hillary has high unfavorables. I don't see how her winning was a forgone conclusion, aside from the establishment being deeply corrupt.

[Divinity]

They had a media blackout on Bernie. They set up at least some of the democratic debates on Saturday night, which is a poor night to expect people to sit at home and watch a debate. They made it harder for independents to vote on the election. There's evidence that Hillary was given questions prior to debates, when Bernie wasn't. The DNC did things that helped stifle Bernie. I consider the fact that he was never mathematically eliminated as being close to winning. Maybe you're right, and we do have different definitions of "almost lost/won", but the DNC was helping Hillary.

The fact is, Bernie has high favorables, and Hillary has high unfavorables. I don't see how her winning was a forgone conclusion, aside from the establishment being deeply corrupt.

They had TWO debates on Saturday Night.  The second and third ones... back in November 2015. That includes the several forums they had as well btw.  

Do you really think Hillary having advanced knowledge of the questions helped her change the mind of thousands of voters?  Do you really?  

The corporate media was never going to give Sanders much air time (though he did get plenty of time at most of the debates).  

The DNC showed bias, but they didn't really affect the results.  I donated to the Sanders campaign btw.  And I'll donate to the Liz Warren campaign in 2020 if she chooses to run.  But I'm not going to pretend like the DNC actually changed anything by their brazenly stupid show of bias.   What's mind boggling about it all is that it was so unnecessary.  Like Watergate.