it's not as simple as "it's all the russian's fault" just like it's not as simple as "she was a terrible candidate."
i don't even know if anyone here even puts the russian interference as the prime reason for her defeat. outrage at a presidential candidate (and no potus) colluding with a foreign adversary does not automatically mean that you feel clinton was all bunnies and rainbows.
she was a flawed candidate from day one. i don't think you can point to a single candidate on either side of the election who wasn't flawed. even my ideal candidate in mike bloomberg has serious issues that he would have to answer to and address - from stop and frisk to income equality.
i simply have a few major problems with the anti-Hillary, anyone else would have beat trump line of thought.
1) flawed candidate does not mean she was a bad candidate. the woman was highly qualified for the job, probably more qualified than her husband was when he was elected. she was a multi-term senator from one of the largest states in the nation, and a highly respected secretary of state. her and her husband's foundation was among the most highly respected and well run non-profits in the world, and produced real, meaningful change in some of the poorest undeveloped regions of the world. this doesn't change that she had faults, that she had issues connecting with people, that her "deplorable" comment was incredibly harmful with the section of the electorate that ultimately sunk her, nor does it change that the democratic party misjudged the influence of the rural white vote in the rust belt region, nor does it hide the fact that the DNC has largely ignored the plight of white rural Americans in the rust belt and Appalachia, and has done next to nothing on the public stage to help fight the incredible opiate addiction problem in that region. but...
2) Clinton was dominating every major poll at the time the Comey letter came out. the letter brought her numbers back down to within the margin of error. it's hardly crazy to believe that she would have won, probably be a comfortable margin, if not for the release of the letter. that doesn't change that she had flaws, nor does it take her and the DNC off the hook for ignoring the rust belt. but 10 days out from election day, despite all the faults, she held a dominating lead. one event changed that.
3) there is no way to know how Sanders would have performed when finally faced with the spotlight and vetting that comes from being on the big stage. clinton never fully attacked his weak points during the debates, for fear of alienating his base. he never faced the public scrutiny she did. it's impossible to know how he would have fared once the spotlight was fully on him. parts of the republican war book on sanders have leaked out, and it wasn't pretty. could he have survived through that? maybe. faced up against trump? yea, maybe he could. i think the best argument for Sanders over Clinton was that there would have been no Sanders Comey letter, but it's impossible to know if there wouldn't have been something else.