Maybe… but she should know better. 
Or maybe you’re wrong and Bernie did in fact hurt her. Do you think the Russians were happy or sad that Bernie decided to keep running after being mathematically eliminated?
Maybe!
Who the hell cares what Hillary says?
You are a classy and admirable gentleman. 
Clinton blames everyone but herself for her loss. Sanders isn’t even a Democrat. Why would she expect anything from him? He doesn’t owe the party anything.
Is that double reverse psychology or something?
Historic in the sense of having a wider margin of popular vote support than any other person to lose the Electoral college? I guess all losses are “historic” in the sense that they’re part of history. But she lost because of three states with a difference in votes that would barely fill a football stadium.
Sanders was mathematically eliminated when the superdelegates voted, and not before that. If you’re going to have a system with superdelegates, then you can hardly fault a candidate for trying to convince the superdelegates to vote for him. That’s not being a sore loser; it’s playing the game the way it is.
Do Super delegates exist just to be sure the Party gets the candidate it wants?
I’ll fault a candidate that rails about how superdelegates are against democracy, then turns around and tries to convince the superdelegates to vote against the democratically selected nominee. Then turns around again in three years, back to “superdelegates bad”.
It’s not playing the system, it’s whining to get what YOU want every step of the way.
Well they’ve never gone against the candidate who was winning in pledged delegates. So overturning the clear popular will in favor of what “The Party” wants (of course a thing of a single mind), as Sanders was holding onto hope they would do, (wanting him of course) has not been their function … yet anyway.
OTOH I do think the system functions as a hedge against the rise of a demagogue like Trump taking over the party in a crowded field by giving experienced party operatives some ability to nudge the choice to someone who is not about destroying the party and replacing it.
The original intent was born out of the Hunt commission, which was looking to reverse a run of D support decreases, to some degree, they thought, because the pure grassroots approach led to both too much frontloading to low turnout primaries that gave too much power to more highly motivated single issue, or cult of personality, factions, leading to a candidate who did not actually represent the interests of those who vote in general elections. Whether or not it delivered on that is of course pretty questionable.
That’s literally what playing the system means.
Wrong. In May he was eliminated unless he got help from the Superdelegates (an incredibly unlikely proposition) but he was eliminated outright on June 7th, a week before the final primary. Not sure why I’m bothering because in a month you are just going to remember your own “facts” again.
Funny, I call that hypocritical bullshit.
Clinton winning the popular vote in 2016 is about as relevant as the fact that she won the popular vote in 2008.
Which is why he’s the logical nominee.
You want the Berners to show up, you nominate Bernie.
But would black voters show up? I can see Bernie helping out a little in the states Trump won that he shouldn’t have, but personally I think black voters turning out in large numbers works out better for Democrats.
You don’t always give children what they want.
Umm, no. I can watch the 1984 or 1972 election results on YouTube if I want to see what that would be like. Bernie has been nothing but toxic poison and I’m glad this is his last run. It’s too bad that Warren’s stans are adopting Bernie’s scorched earth tactics at least on Twitter.