*should have and *upset
She campaigned quite a bit in Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are typically thought of as Rust Belt states.
I think, with hindsight being 20/20, most Democrats' frustrations were with the way Secretary Clinton campaigned in those states - allegedly drinking the Schumer koolaid that "for every voter we lose in [Western PA], we gain two moderate voters in the [Philly suburbs]." While the obvious point of frustration for many Democrats is that this seems to be selling the party's soul and abandoning its traditional egalitarian roots, it also just clearly didn't work. I think some of the irrational hatred/blame toward Hillary Clinton stems mostly from the frustration that it is now clear that the DNC took many working class voters for granted and/or didn't care if they lost them but now see that there is an almost unbelievably high floor for just about any Republican (especially if Trump managed to reach it!) among White, upper-middle class suburbanites; some of them will vote Republican no matter what, whereas working class voters at least have a natural incentive (in theory) to support Democrats.
It's not unique to the DNC.
This is also what Jeb/Rubio were doing on the Republican side with regards to the GOP base, taking the base for granted and trying to reach out to other voters. That's why notions of all Trump voters getting behind them is ridiculous and the idea of them either of them winning a blowout election is absurd.
There's a good chance they might have found that Hispanics had a higher floor with Dems than they anticipated. Rubio couldn't even beat Murphy with Latinos in heavily cuban FL, even after the DNC cut off support to Murphy.
