Is Sanders at fault for Clinton's loss?

[The Houstonian]

I think not.

[dw93]

No, not even partially. Hillary did nothing to reach out to Sanders supporters, who were outside of a few fringe nuts reachable, and instead banked on Suburban never Trump Republicans in the Sunbelt to carry her to a landslide that was never gonna happen. It was her campaign, not Sanders that ignored what was called "the blue wall", when even Obama had to put some effort into those states to keep them. Hillary also should've hit Trump in the same place that Obama successfully hit Romney, his business record, but instead she chose to run a "Trump's a racist meanie, I'm not vote for me and break the glass ceiling" campaign.

[Motorcity]

No, Sanders running made her a stronger candidate

[Chips]

Maybe partially.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hillary is the main person at fault.

[SInNYC]

She would have had a smaller PV lead (or even lost the PV) if she hadnt had a primary challenger.

This is mainly because she would have said stuff like 'I accepted wall street money because of 9/11' during a presidential debate instead of during a less watched primary debate.

[Xing]

Not at all. While you could argue some external factors contributed to Clinton's loss, Sanders cannot be blamed. The responsibility to convince the more reluctant Sanders supporters to vote for her was on her, not him.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

In the same way that Bill Bradley is at fault for Gore losing in 2000.

[Schiff for Senate]

Maybe a little, but it's largely Clinton's fault for taking WI for granted and deciding not to reach out to Wisconsinites or Sanders supporters. If she had just focused on Obama's states minus Ohio, Iowa and perhaps Florida, she would have most likely won. Biden won those states (particularly WI) in large part because he didn't take them for granted (he learned from Hillary's mistake).