Democrats blame Green, Libertarian parties for Hillary being “shitty, miserable” candidate

Stunned by Donald Trump’s surprising victory in 2016, Democrats from coast-to-coast took to blaming the Green and Libertarian Parties for the fact that Hillary Clinton was a “miserable, shitty candidate.”
“Hillary could have had some really good ideas if everyone else hadn’t come up with them first,” proclaimed Beth Sugarbush of Germantown, Maryland. “It’s really not fair that they were allowed to participate.”
“I mean, I was very much in support of Bernie (Sanders), I felt like his ideas were absolutely fantastic, but it would have been wrong to vote for (Green party candidate Jill) Stein, who carried the torch for those same ideas, because she wasn’t running as a Democrat,” Beth stated in one of several weepy posts on Facebook in the early morning hours of November 9.
“I feel like Hillary really cared about being in power, which would have kept a Democrat in the White House,” said Lisa Felcher of Merna, Nebraska, who attended Clinton’s New York City victory celebration, which never came to fruition. “Its like no one gets it. It doesn’t matter who has the best plans, you always vote for the Democrat. Always.”
“So what if Hillary doesn’t know what the letter C stands for on a classified email? The alphabet can be very confusing. But this Gary Johnson guy? Gary Johnson may be more socially liberal than Clinton, and his economic plan may have been more concrete, and sure, maybe he hasn’t been repeatedly and thoroughly investigated in any crimes against the government or recently implicated any child sex trafficking, but come on, he didn’t have an answer about Aleppo when prompted,” Lisa conveyed. “I mean, saying its a place you don’t plan to bomb to smithereens isn’t good enough! You have to say that and be a Democrat. He can bomb away, I don’t care, just run with our party or get out of the race!”
“Look at the result,” Lisa concluded. “Because there were reasonable, competent candidates in the race, the Democrat doesn’t win. This is wrong. It’s just wrong.”
“You’d think by now people would just ignore the third party options,” said Al Severenson, a Clinton supporter. “The big parties have worked very hard to make them completely ineffective or obsolete, and they should be by now. There are enough laws in place to keep people from ever, ever hearing about them!”
A Democrat in the House of Representatives, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons, concluded: “This was our election. I mean, Hillary may be boring, lazy, or even more vague about her plans than all of the opposition, but we were running against a racist demonspawn with irredeemable, deplorable, basic redneck supporters. How could we just lose to someone who uses so much divisive language? Because these third party assholes came in with competent ideas? That’s not good enough, not for me.”
“Trust me,” said the Representative, “Just because Hillary was a miserable, shitty candidate, doesn’t mean she deserves to lose just because people want reasonable options to mediocrity. This isn’t the way America should work.”
Following the election results, Democrat representatives within the Federal Election Commission and the Commission for Presidential Debates were looking into new ways to make small party participation in Presidential Debates even more daunting.
“Fucking impossible, that’s what it needs to be,” said one Democrat who works for the FEC. “We can’t let this happen again. Heaven forbid one of these third party assholes actually be represented in our government. Pool’s closed for ideas, assholes!”