Not at all. As of around 3am EST this morning it was patently obvious she was the wrong choice. In the same way that Kerry was the wrong choice in 2004, up against W, the buffoon-in-chief!

If the Dems couldn't find a candidate that could stomp all over Trump, then they didn't deserve to win!

Thing is, they had one. Or at least one who could have ran a closer race than Hillary did. All it would have taken was a nomination.

The DNC won the election for Trump.

Yes, at least 5 seconds.

But turnout in Florida was high. Clinton won about 245k more votes there than Obama in 2012, but Trump achieved a record-breaking vote total there,

At first blush, the overall vote count in Pennsylvania was about the same as in 2012. The CNN exit polls in Pennsylvania find that Clinton pulled only 41% of independents.

In the case of PA, it may be similar to Brexit in that the undecideds opted to reject the status quo rather than accept it. I'm not sure, though; we really need more data for this one.

A bit of a silly comment given that (i) primary voters voted very clearly for her; and (ii) we don't know how other candidates would have fared against Trump.

A different point and one I agree with.

(i) I didn't.

But just because she won the primary doesn't mean she was the right choice. Was Romney the right choice in 2012, McCain in 2008? Probably not or they would have won.

They abandoned their traditional voters and went for new trendier demographics.

They assume their traditional voters were locked in.

Not complicated.

But the Democrat party, the party heavyweights, and financial backers, coalesced behind Hilary in a way that Jeb Bush could only have dreamed of.

The Dem's only presented the primary choice of Hillary or a slightly deranged looking, ranting old man. I believe that (i) Hilary was the best candidate presented in the Dem primaries, and (ii) almost any other established member of the Democrat party would have been a better choice than Hilary, ..... but the Democrat heavyweights had "coalesced" behind Hilary.
Ironically Donald Trump assumed those traditional Democrat voters weren't locked in, and stole millions of those "locked-in" votes!

Don't forget a slightly deranged looking, ranting old man has just won the Presidency.

cough.... slightly??????

The democrats lost many traditional voters for trendier demographics to be sure. The assumed traditional voters locked in because they have lost touch, as have Republican establishment politicians.

Now it is a battle for change between Trump and the Republican Congress. While the Republicans may control the Senate, I think it is possible establishment Senators will join hands with Democrat Senators on many occasions to block change.

So if the rumours are true and Rinse Prius is going to be Trump's chief of staff, then it's likely we'll see a lot of standard Republican issues become Trump's ideas given how persuaded Trump is by the last person in the room.

Which is another facet of my point! How unattractive does a candidate have to be to lose to Donald Trump?

Hilary had a complete lack of empathy with and understanding for the traditional Democrat demographics, she showed no interest in the blue collar segment, which Donald Trump deftly went straight after. And as one analyst said in a report I read this morning, the black vote collapsed, which combined with the lost blue collar votes, cost Hilary NC, PA and MI, and oh so nearly cost her VA, ..... not that VA mattered!

Considering Democrats have been relying on black voters for decades and then do fck all for them once elected, it's not really a surprise.