As Tony Stark loves to point out, Hillary got 3 million more votes and thats why she should've won. But that's exactly the reason she SHOULDN'T have won. I'm going to assume for a minute that no illegal voted and every person that voted for Hillary was actually voting for her and not "against Trump". Now when you can have 3 million more people on your side and you still lose, what does that say about you? It says you're a piss poor strategist that simply thinks having the numbers means you don't need to actually do any strategy. Why is that bad, you ask? There is a saying that how you do one thing is how you do everything. America has the biggest military. How bad of a screw up would it be to put someone with bad strategy as the commander in chief of the largest military? I mean, if you can't win an election with an overwhelming majority of votes, how can you win a war even with an overwhelming military? We have a huge economy. How bad of a screw up would it be to assume we will win at trade simply because our economy is larger than the rest of the world? You have to have a strategy or you'll lose. If it was just this election that proved her bad strategy, you MIGHT be able to sum it up as a fluke, but the fact is, she won the primaries with the most votes in 2008 against Obama, but didn't get the nomination due to bad strategy with not getting the superdelegates on her side. She didn't even learn her lesson in 2008 that getting more votes means squat without a good plan which just further proves she can't learn from her mistakes. And thats why it's best for America that Hillary didn't win. Even if she did get more votes. Leaders need strategy no matter how big or small their country is and Hillary didn't have a strategy. And that's why she wasn't qualified to be president.
Too bad, she would have been the fattest president since Taft. Now I think Trump is. But they were very close and she would have been if she had won and she should have won, but the rules are flawed.
Really? Think about it. You have a woman who supposedly has 30 years of "experience", a $1.2 billion dollar campaign warchest, and she's running against (as the left puts it) the least liked republican candidate in history. So unliked that even the republican party didn't want him as the nominee, not to mention the mainstream media was totally and completely on her side...and she LOST to him...with 3 million extra voters! I mean...how do you eff that up? I'll tell you how...by not having a good plan. And if you can't make a good enough plan to win the presidency, you sure as hell aren't going to make and good plans once you get it.
"Most qualified candidate in history", with billions behind her and every media organization abandoning any pretense of fairness, and she lost to a casino developer who took up politics as a hobby a year and a half prior to the election.
There are a number of reasons I would agree with you as to why Hillary is/was not qualified to run for President. The fact that she got 3 million more votes would not be one of those reasons.