What Really Happened?
Disclosure: I supported Bernie in the primaries, Hillary in the General, and have not read Hillary's post mortem. She evidently omitted a few things, (as surely I do), which I submit below for consideration.
Clinton is the fourth nominee to get the most votes but lose the presidency, and the second in just 16years. Those who lost were Democrats (Tilden, Gore...). It must be difficult to have a bird's-eye view of a campaign when you're in the middle of the cyclone, but it seems Hillary wouldn't have known how to sell herself in any event. She's a dedicated, committed wonk who fails the test: "With which candidate would you rather have a beer?"
Remember Tom Dewey in 1948? Like Hillary, the New York Governor was a sure bet to win. Dewey ran an arrogant, smug, cautious, issueless campaign, never connecting emotionally with the voters, who inevitably compared him with Truman's railroad whistle-stop campaign. The biggest upset in history resulted.
Looking presumptuous, Hillary acted as it was "her turn." She was next in line, and didn't need a nimble, creative campaign. She let us down big-time.
She seemed like Obama's third term, but without his charm, wit, style, and warmth. This was another "change" election, many evidently thinking Obama didn't deliver enough of it and not seeing that the GOP Congress blocked all it could.
Clinton would probably have done better had she retained her independent status as a US Senator. Voters usually want a change after eight years. As Obama's former Secretary of State, she'd be blamed for any deficiencies of his administration while getting no credit for accomplishments.
What if Bill Clinton had not talked to AG Loretta Lynch on that plane about the FBI's investigation of Hillary? Lynch would not have had to recuse herself, which meant FBI Director Jim Comey would decide on bringing charges against Hillary.
Most voters could have readily mentioned at least one thing Trump would do as President. But Hillary? Nothing comes to mind. Dewey deja-vu. It's possible to have too many issues, as they get muddled. Her web site was full of them. One is better. Remember "change"?
What did Hillary offer voters? She didn't have an over-arching issue, but instead, a bit of this 'n that. She pledged to help pay off college loan debt. Fine, if you're after the Chardonnay and cheese demographic, but do the millions of blue collar folks worried about paying the basics care?
Hillary allowed herself to be portrayed as the candidate of wide open borders. She let Trump claim the mantle as the candidate who cared most about domestic terrorism. For Hillary, immigration and terrorism were about position papers. For Trump, it was visceral. Hmmm... pay off college debt vs. protection from immigrants bombing malls...Get this one wrong, and there goes needed electoral votes. Primal fear trumps almost anything, and Republicans specialize at using fear, hate and anger to move voters.
When Hillary casually did a180 in pivoting from support to opposing the TPP ("the Gold Standard," in her words), her opportunist image was confirmed - someone who will say anything to win.
Hillary's smug, cautious, arrogant campaign meant she'd take Wisconsin for granted, a state she didn't visit for nine months prior to the General Election. 10 electoral votes to Trump.
She had plenty of money, but she didn't effectively use the fruits of her opposition research. In effect, she gave him something of a pass on his baggage - his profiteering, greed and lack of charity, his draft-dodger status during Vietnam, his secrets during the disco era (drugs, paying for abortions - surely there's something there), his lack of charity, hiding his income taxes, his business bankruptcies.
Hillary did badly on her presentation and wardrobe. That orange pants suit! She didn't present herself well, and for women, there's a more narrow range of what's acceptable, especially if you want to be the first woman president. Too loud, and you're considered "shrill." Too soft, and you're considered weak.
Clinton did not campaign as a Grandmother, which would have built her deficient "endearing" trait. Why not ads holding grandbaby? She campaigned like a man, and it didn't look or sound good.
In the 2008 primary New Hampshire town hall she teared up, and her campaign got a new life. Maybe Hillary is human, after all! Her softer side was not seen in 2016, however, and millions who didn't like her (those years of hearings on Whitewater, Benghazi and the e-mail server took their toll) voted for Trump. Even now, many Trump voters say, "Well, I didn't like Clinton!" (Ask them why, and it's never about issues, but personality/character, particularly trust.)
Hillary's failure to connect with millions should not have been a surprise. She under performed against Obama in 2008 and Bernie in 2016. Yet the super delegates and smart money piled on, ready to jump over the cliff with a clearly flawed candidate.
It would have helped had Obama campaigned relentlessly about his many successes, but he seemed to run out of steam in the waning months. Not enough about Putin helping Trump, or the economic rebound. It's OK to brag in campaigns.
At the end of the campaign, a reporter asked Clinton if she had individuals in mind for top jobs. Most candidates would have demurred, "No, there's an election to win before I can do that!" but instead, she replied she had been considering appointees.
Clinton did appear to be the probable winner. She did get the most votes. And who thought Putin was so deep into our election? Who knew the media would give Trump invaluable publicity? Who knew Comey would intervene? The election was still hers to lose, and lose it she did, with a series of awful choices, from issues to orange pants suits.
Many Bernie voters didn't vote for Hillary in November - enough to cost her some swing states. Her negatives rose and remained high after being so hammered by Bernie. What could she do about that? (Her selection of Tim Kaine as her VP nominee was an astute decision).
Importantly, warm, charming, engaging candidate usually outperform those who are seen as colder.
Democratic leaders need to connect with regular folks. Regular folks don't use terms like "dispositive," (Senator Murphy) "twenty-oh-eight" instead of 2008, (Steny Hoyer) or "alliteration" (Pelosi). Down talk down to us.
We should ignore endorsements by the Big Shots and super delegates who themselves are often remote and have their own agenda. Bandwagons can be fake. It's good to have an overall, resonating campaign theme. (Remember how Ted Kennedy never recovered in 1980 after he couldn't give one rationale when asked?)
Trump can be beaten, but so can the Democrat, if our nominee doesn't relate and seem authentic.
Samos has been a Democratic activist for 50 years.