I'd greatly, greatly prefer an actually progressive candidate over Clinton. But I still disagree that Clinton ass a terrible choice from an objective viewpoint. The main way I can see her being terrible is largely simply in the "meta" for US elections, since she had been attacked so hard by Republicans and generally wasn't very charismatic (not that Biden is either).

In terms of experience, she was undeniably unbeatable and I'm convinced she would have simply been Obama v1.1 in terms of policy.

IMO the strong, strong opposition to her was heavily influenced by sexism and people drinking the GOP's propaganda. She was held to different standards than a male candidate with the same experience.

And the whole complaints about the party favouring her? So what? Of course they favoured the strongest candidate. I personally love Sanders (and if I were American, he'd have my vote), but I know he'd have an even harder time winning the general. Nor do I think it makes sense to hate Clinton herself because her party favoured her so strongly. Some "Bernie bros" were utterly bizarre in their behavior and I can only assume were trolls, as no well informed person would vote for Trump or not vote at all simply because Sanders wasn't on the general ballot. I mean, there's a reason he endorsed Clinton at the end.

Thank you! Other platforms are so astroturfed that this fact is often covered up with accusations of sexism. The fact is that ever poll at the time said that everyone could beat Trump except for her. She was political poison and her and the DNC cheated to make her the candidate which scared off even more voters. She is the reason we suffered as a country, not the supposed savior!

I agree. I voted for Hillary, but we were all sick of the dynastic candidates back then. Two Bushes followed by two Clinton's rubbed people the wrong way.

Plus, the right had been demonizing Hillary for so long, people on both sides were tired of it.

That's all before actual policy issues.

She was a poor candidate choice.