You beat me to it. Indeed, it was a Dunning-Kruger election but not in the way that the OP meant it.
Also, following on your second point, if the Dems are so smart how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate. We'll never know but I think its likely Sanders would have won versus Trump.
> how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate
All of the people positions of power in the DNC were pro-Hillary. That's why they were blinded. Their mind was made up before the election cycle even started.
> > how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate
> All of the people positions of power in the DNC were pro-Hillary. That's why they were blinded.
Running a campaign vs running a country is very different, no doubt. But many will make a case there. She has dropped the ball on the election, besides other list of things vs someone won against all odds (CNN projecting less than 1% odds of winning).
The interesting thing is much as people like to say Trump is stupid, anti-intellectual, just a TV personality, somehow he had intuition to poll in the right states at the right time, to understand what people want and respond do. All that while the both the Republicans, and Democrats, the media, the DOJ and POTUS where against him.
Taking everything away and just comparing based on those things, it is possible to draw some conclusions perhaps.
I actually think it's unlikely for Sanders, but Biden likely would have won, if he had run. Many many many people saw this coming and begged him to enter the race. Biden has a bond with the blue-collar workers who fled to Trump, he has a compelling life story and is free of any clintonian scandals.
Also, following on your second point, if the Dems are so smart how could they not see that Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate. We'll never know but I think its likely Sanders would have won versus Trump.