That's true, but that doesn't mean nominating her was a good choice. It may be the fault of Republicans that she's so hated, but it's the fault of the Democrats that they nominated someone so hated.

No, she wasn't so hated. In fact, she had net favorables midway through 2015. All you saw was a gutter campaign because really, Trump and the Republicans didn't have anything else to run on. Business record? Please. Personal character? Experience?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favora...

And we can see how reliable political polling is.... In any case, it doesn't matter if >50% of people see her favorably if they don't see her favorably enough to vote for her, and if the other side sees her unfavorably enough to vote against her.

I don't think that gutter campaign would have worked against someone who the Republicans hadn't spent two decades preparing for.

You keep adding caveats and provisos.

Fact is that Hillary is a well thought of Yale law grad, partner, Walmart board member, First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.

The only thing that will beat that is a gutter campaign.

My claim was "many people hated her." It's not adding caveats and provisos to point out that this is compatible with being seen favorably by a majority.

You keep talking about the gutter campaign. What's your point there? Blame Republicans for running an effective campaign tailored to the weaknesses of their opponent?

My point is that a gutter campaign was all Republicans had. Obama had done well and Hillary was exceptionally qualified. So they motivated a scared base to win a gerrymandered election while losing the popular vote.