She skipped out on campaigning in several states that flipped for Trump, and didn't really do much to address her (un)likeability.
Edit - the US election is won or lost on electoral votes, not the popular vote. You play to win within the rules, not to make excuses.
It seems likely to me that it wasn't her pollsters from all those elections that were the weakness, but the candidate, who has a strong loyal base within the party, limited ability to hold on to votes that initially lean her way that aren't part of that base, and basically no ability (in part because of hardened negative opinions on a large segment of the electorate) to swing opposed or uncommitted voters.
Not sure where you're getting your information from... but get it from somewhere else.
"“We have an honor system, which is effective for people who are honorable, but is also an opportunity for people who are not honorable,” Bell said. “There is a gap in the system, and we don’t have administrative folks who will be aggressive about looking into that.”"
"One concern, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, is that California issues driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, allowing them to automatically be registered to vote under the federal “motor-voter” laws. Since the AB60 law went into effect in 2015, 806,000 illegal immigrants have received a license."
"There is no driver’s license required to register to vote, and there are stiff penalties for illegally voting, the spokesman said."
"Even John Podesta, former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, acknowledged in a leaked email that driver’s licenses do provide a loophole."
"Claude Arnold, who served as the former Special Agent in Charge for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations in Southern California, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, said he has witnessed voter fraud firsthand."
“Throughout my 27-year career with [Immigration and Naturalization Service] and ICE, I arrested hundreds of illegal criminal aliens who had voter registration cards,” Arnold said. “They would often admit they voted, but they were rarely prosecuted for illegally voting.”
---
So basically, a humongous state like California, has an honor system. Be honest with yourself: On average, would you say people are honorable or try to exploit systems to their advantage?
According to Professor Richard L. Hasen,
an election-law expert at the University
of California at Irvine, "there are number
of people who have been active in
promoting false and exaggerated claims
of voter fraud and using that as a pretext
to argue for stricter voting and registration
rules. And von Spakovsky’s at the top of the
list."[24] Hasen said that Spakovsky's
appointment to Donald Trump's Presidential
Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
was a “a big middle finger” from Trump to
people “serious about fixing problems with
our elections.”[24]
Here's more:
Finally, there’s Hans von Spakovsky. In the
Bush Justice Department, Department veterans
wrote that he was the “point person for
undermining the Civil Rights Division’s mandate
to protect voting rights.” He wanted DOJ to
give the thumbs up to several state voter ID
measures which critics said had a negative
impact on minority voters.
Former lawyers in the office said Mr.
Spakovsky’s decisions seemed to have a
partisan flavor unlike those in previous
Republican and Democratic administrations.
Mr. Spakovsky declined to comment.
In fact, virtually no Western democracy chooses its leader on the basis of a popular vote (I believe there are a few exceptions).
It's sophistry to even bring it up.
I mean, sorry to step on your narrative by pointing out this basic fact.
You guys do know that even if our government operated like Canada, or Sweden, or any of the other countries you profess to admire, that Hillary Clinton still wouldn't be President, right? In fact, under a parliamentary system, the President would be chosen by insider dealing between party hacks like McConnell, Ryan, etc.
That just transfers the gerrymandering power from elected officials (who can be thrown out if they annoy the voters enough) to whoever gets appointed to an unelected "independent organization" (which can't be thrown out by the voters).
In practice, this "independent organization" is appointed by the Canadian parliament (i.e., by the political parties), so it is "independent" in name only.
To expand a bit, the very notion of an "independent organization" seems questionable. Who will make up this organization?
Career civil servants? They will be biased toward whichever party proposes to spend more money on civil servants.
Appointees by whichever party controls parliament (as appears to be the case in Canada)? The problem there should be obvious.
Proportional appointment on the basis of election results? Biased toward the major parties at the expense of minority parties.
And so on.
Not even a blind grid system is immune -- in that case where you set the origin of the grid can have a major effect.