They really believed Hillary was the perfect candidate.
The argument I kept hearing from those types were "she was the most experienced/qualified candidate in history", which was a flat-out joke even if you took it on its own terms. And it was usually accompanied by a statement that Trump was the "least qualified" candidate in history.
But I thought that such statements said more about the person who valued them than they did about Clinton. There's the obvious retort that she doesn't have any experience at being
successful -- just at occupying an office. But implicit in that evaluation of the relative experience of Clinton/Trump is that having actual working experience in the private sector, in business formation, etc., is considered
of no value at all.
That's really pretty remarkable given the incredible important of the role the federal government plays with respect to the private sector. Laws, regulations, mandates, taxes, payrolls, labor issues, subsidies, profit-making....a lifelong professional politician has no significant experience at all in how those governmental actions actually affect the private sector. So you'd think that having experience in all that would be incredibly valuable. But instead, the diehard Clinton supporters consider that valueless.
Tell you a lot about them.
