I just checked the Electoral Vote totals. If she had won MI and WI, she still would have lost the Election by a 280-258 margin. If somehow she could have won PA and MI, she would have come very close, but Trump still would have won 270-268. Now if she could have won PA and MI and snared the one vote in the Northern Maine Congr District, then we would have had a 269-269 tie. However, the fact remains that in order to win outright, she needed all three normally Dem states that she lost: MI, PA and WI. Logically, she should have won MI. She only lost by about 10,000 votes and she really only devoted much time and money there near the end. As to WI, word has it that she never campaigned there even once. I do not know how much she spent on tv ads there, but the margin was less that 23,000 votes, so she probably could have won WI with time and resources. So, that leaves PA. The problem here is that she lost PA by 44,000, the largest margin of the three states and she spent the most time and money there by far. I doubt very much that Clinton could have done anymore that she did already to carry PA. The problem is that outside of Allegheny County, she got beat badly in traditionally Dem SW PA, no doubt due to her anti-coal message. She also lost traditionally Dem Wilkes Barre and barely carried traditionally Dem Scranton, both in NE PA coal country. It would appear that more than any other single factor, her anti-coal message cost her the Presidency. Yes, maybe, maybe..... if Comey had not come out near the end with his statement about more emails, maybe she could have barely carried PA, MI and WI. MI seems the most likely to have flipped, but WI and PA not so certain.