Mr. 47%

[RI]

Hillary didn't lose because of anything the "MSM" did; she lost because plenty of Democrats weren't fond of the scandals and bickering of the Clinton administration and wanted a new direction for the party, especially after the dynastic Bush era, not to mention that plenty of Dems simply don't like Hillary, while Obama presented an exciting alternative.

And lol at the "mighty" tea party. They were literally a media creation from the beginning (Rick Santelli) that was latched onto by opportunistic over-the-hill politicians. If the media killed it, it was only because they stopped reporting on their own invention.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hillary lost because Obama was the better manipulator. That's how politics work. I do think it's unfortunate, but that's what happened.

[RogueBeaver]

Hillary lost because she a) took it for granted b) completely ignored caucus state infrastructure. Not the MSM, though they obviously preferred Obama over her.

[RI]

Hillary lost because she a) took it for granted b) completely ignored caucus state infrastructure.

Well yeah, that was the technical reason why she lost the delegate game, but not the reason why so many voted for Obama rather than her.

[WhyteRain]

Looking at an election as a referendum on one candidate without contextualization is generally a poor idea.

Don't worry, the MSM will do all it can to distort the facts.  

I always try to remind myself how powerful the MSM is -- how they destroyed two of my "sure-thing" predictions:  One, that Hillary would crush Obama whose 2008 candidacy I considered a joke, and, two, that the Tea Party would crush Romney in the 2012 GOP race.  Instead, the MSM crushed the mighty Clinton Machine and the mighty Tea Party.  

So the "MSM" serves as your bogeyman whenever your predictions go wrong?

No.