I agree with everything else you said, but want to add one thing. We also have to stop pretending that Clinton lost the election as opposed to all those voters who literally couldn't be bothered to show up. They shouldn't be off the hook, either.Hillary was a bad candidate that ran a poor campaign. She did not pump up the Senate races, she did not excite the base and she was unable to close the election against a reality TV clown. So, now, we fight or we die.
Sorta. But again, I have a big problem with us saying it was Clinton's fault. Even if she sucked, she sucked less than Trump. Those who didn't show in essence voted for Trump. That she wasn't "inspiring" enough is not an excuse in my book.
Voting is only meaningful to the extent that it achieves a given outcome. Now, you can argue that there's a form of protest in not voting (I certainly considered it this time around), but voting is one of those situations where inaction is nonetheless contributing to a specific outcome. In this case, Democratic supporters not turning out is one cause (among several) for Trump's victory. Tautological though it may seem, Clinton would have won if more people who supported her (or at least disliked her less) had voted for her. Thus their decision not to vote literally took votes out of Clinton's (theoretical) total, which in turn was one of the reasons that Trump had more. It also fails pretty badly as a protest. The apathy of the average voter is not a new narrative, and any idea of a protest vote will be swallowed up by the traditional one.
I understand that, but that decision was tantamount to a vote for Trump.
Everyone was also repeatedly told Hillary was favored to win in every poll, so the impetus for liberals to make it out on voting day was markedly lower.