Those were the mathematical facts in every realistic situation. In every other election it has been common knowledge and wisdom that primary candidates don't beat each other up too much so that they don't give the opposition ammo in the general election. But Clinton was not allowed that professional courtesy.

Now, if you want to talk about issues, more common sense and wisdom says it is easier to effect change with control of the three branches of government than without them. I think the reason that independents haven't gained traction much is that most people understand that and are willing to work with the candidate they have then to allow the opposition to take power. The Republicans clearly understand that. Their candidates get increasingly crazy, but they vote for them anyway. Giving up power for an unrealistic beauty contest within the party is sheer political suicide. Pointing out political realities is not ragging on people, and Clinton taking a more realistic approach did not mean she rejected the ideology of the purists, but she didn't want to mislead them. Sanders clearly had no problem with overpromising.

And seriously, no one I know of, including Clinton, had said she was inevitable or was a runaway train. That is all more out-of-context emotional baggage that is attributed to her and her supporters.