Would Hillary have been President if she were a man?

I don’t think so.

Gender doesn’t excuse the things she did or what she wanted to have done.
By this I mean if Trump had done these things he wouldn’t have won.

I think so. She is collected, intelligent, thoughtful and well spoken.

There is no proof that she did anything @SergeantQueen. It’s all rumors and spin.

I don’t think she would have even been in the position to run in the first place.

Maybe she would have, maybe she wouldn’t, but still, I wonder how far a female politician would be able to get in a presidential bid if she bragged about grabbing men by the penis, repeatedly muttered “nasty man” into the microphone during her opponent’s turn to speak at a debate, was on her third marriage, and had been accused by multiple men of sexual assault, including at least one person who was a child when she allegedly assaulted him.

and had told a talk show host that it was okay to refer to her son as a “piece of ass” and had said that if he weren’t her son “perhaps she’d be dating him.”

and had had a reputation as the owner of the Mr. Universe beauty pageant for walking in on underage male beauty pageant contestants while they were naked in their dressing rooms.

More so than she did.

Actually, @cinnamonk, given those thoughts, I think if a WOMAN did those things, men would stumble over themselves to get her elected.

@Patty_Melt sure, maybe, if she was at least a 7 or 8/10.

I’m honestly not sure. I certainly don’t think she has earned the level of vitriol thrown her way… to paraphrase John Oliver in his “Scandal” episode, there are some things surrounding her that don’t look great, but the closer you look, the less there is to see. And, going by an On the Media discussion I listened to, the recent surge in Hillary dislike and distrust was largely orchestrated by Bannon and Breitbart digging up pieces of information they could use specifically to make Hillary look bad, and feeding those to journalists at reputable papers like the Washington Post and the New York Times—articles that Breitbart could then point to as support… spin can do a lot.—(The On the Media episode is interesting to listen to, and you can here.)

I don’t have an exact tally on either side, but I would be surprised if Hillary had the same number of evidence-based scandals surrounding her that Trump does… I am still amazed at how he somehow managed to convince enough Americans that four bankruptcies later he was a brilliant businessman, that with the support he had from family and family connections he was a self-made man, that with his history of behavior towards women he respects them, etc…. I am amazed at how much leniency he seems to get to say whatever he wants by his supporters, compared to how carefully Hillary had to choose her words to even her own supporters.

I’m not saying I begrudge Trump his economic success—I just find it frustrating that a man who was supported by his father when he started out, (whether or not his stated $1 million loan is a lot in terms of business, it’s a lot more than most people can hope to receive from their parents), and who had the help of expensive financial and legal advisors to get himself out of various business tight-spots, and who likewise supports his children as they start out—I find it frustrating that he then speaks of how he made himself from nothing; he didn’t, and that should be okay…. also, spin can do a lot. The ghostwriter of The Art of the Deal talks about his own participation in spin

Anyway, I got off topic…

I don’t know how much her sex came into play. I do think, perhaps, her call to make change happen within the existing system was not well-received by many people who seem to just want to see the current system burn. I do think, perhaps, the Breitbart strategy worked better than I wish it would have. Sometimes I do worry that her being a woman had something to do with it—even if gender equality is better than it was, there still seems to be at least the remnants of cultural tension between being seen as “nurturing” and being seen as a “leader”... women at least in recent history have had a hard time finding the appropriate balance between those to two—where on one side they’re too weak, on the other side they’re too cold.

Well, this was longer and more winding than I meant it to be.

PS cinnamonk, I like the name! :)

I think men would be just as creeped out to have an old lady fondle them, or their sons, as we women were at the thought of an old man grabbing at all the young things.

I don’t think her gender played a role. It certainly didn’t help her as her party probably thought though,as over half of women voters went Trump…

I really don’t think that had anything to do with it, or maybe I’m just being naive. I think there is a real misogynist fringe out there, but they are about as rare as the serious neo-nazis. We’re not talking about guys who’ve gone through a bad divorce or hate their boss because she’s a passive-agressive female. We’re talking about guys who seriously hate and distrust all women and would never vote for one even if she was up against Joseph Stalin. I just don’t think there are a lot of them out there.

I guess the serious question here, if there even is one is this…

Is America, reluctant or worse still, unwilling to elect a female leader?

I don’t think so. People seemed clear that they didn’t want any more of Obamaolitics.

I think she’d have had a better chance had she been a man. Whether she’d have got across the line, I don’t know.

I don’t think that we are unwilling to elect a female president. I think the reasons that Clinton lost are multifaceted, there is probably some truth in many of the theories, but I don’t think that Americans as a collective are unwilling to vote for a woman. Clearly, a lot of people underestimated just how divided the people really feel. Now, lucky~ for all of us, it seems this new administration is thrilled to capitalize on it.

I agree,, @ANef_is_Enuf. Note that the majority of the people did vote for her.

@ucme No!

^ Haha, & so America speaks….“duh, i dunno TC”

I think america is actually eager to elect a female. Had Hillary been a man I really think he (she) would probably be quite successfull selling insurance or cars. Perhaps mid-level management at an accounting firm or something like that.

She has a lot more in her than car or insurance salesman, @ARE_you_kidding_me.

Her as a guy, not so much. Mid-level management possibly. Lawyer most likely.

She did ride Bill’s coattails, no matter what he did.(A major weakness of her ,in my book.)

But I think she could have always been in politics.

Even as a man. I mean, there isn’t much competition in government really. It’s always scum bag vs scum bag.

Yes, America is so eager to elect a female president that when faced with a choice between a woman who has been a first lady, a senator of New York, and a secretary of state, and a man who is a proven liar, a racist, a rapist, a misogynist, and who can’t read, they chose…the latter.

I would like to add that I never found many feminine qualities in Hillary. She seemed almost A sexual (to me.) Which is fine.

Just saying that I saw her as a bland politician,in every way. Her gender had zero to do with me liking her. I didn’t hate her. Just never found much I appreciated, or admired,or could really get behind. I listened to some of her speeches, and wasn’t impressed. And when I heard Don, I was like,“well, she’ll win anyway.”

I don’t vote. But her gender didn’t affect my thoughts on her…

She IS a lawyer, @ARE_you_kidding_me.
Where are you coming up with this? Are you suggesting she’s not really as capable as she’s proven to be, but everyone is covering for her because she’s a woman, and they wouldn’t do that if she were male, so she wouldn’t get any where?

Hm, @MrGrimm888. I never found any appealing masculine qualities in Bush Jr, either. I’m sure no one else did, but no one brought it up because it’s utterly stupid.

@Dutchess_III @ARE_you_kidding_me believes that women have a leg up on men in all arenas of life and that sexism doesn’t factor into anything anymore

A leg up on man, except in areas of intelligence. That much is clear. “Had Hillary been a man I really think he (she) would probably be quite successfull selling insurance or cars. Perhaps mid-level management at an accounting firm or something like that.”

The implied statement being, “she’s not smart or competent enough to be anything more than an insurance saleswoman, but because society unfairly favors women over men, we let her run for president.”

You nailed it. “She’s not smart or competent enough to be anything more….” Many men refuse to register that she most certainly IS smart and competent enough to be a president. She’s far smarter than the men who want to strip her of her accomplishments and per her back in the kitchen where she belongs.

So, instead of voting for an intelligent, competent women, as the majority of the people did, the EC decided to put in an ignorant, incompetent buffoon, who can’t even read, into office. But none of that matters because he has a dick. A tiny one, for sure (which is vitally important to most men for some reason,) but a dick none the less.

And you best believe that people are still going to blame her for everything bad that happens under Trump’s watch because she “stole the election from Bernie” and the people who would have voted for Bernie didn’t turn out to vote for her, thus giving the election to Trump.

Even though it makes sense that the Democratic nomination would go to a life-long democrat rather than someone who has called himself an independent and who was an independent candidate for most of his career, and who only labeled himself a Democrat when it was convenient.

They would be stupid to blame her.

Bernie ran on the democrat label because he knew it was his only, ONLY chance to win. He never changed his tune, or his philosophies, just his title.

@Dutchess_III . Why not admonish the more than half of female voters who went Trump?

You’re always talking about oppression by men. But women had a vote. And they mostly voted Trump!....

Again you fail to see women’s role in their own oppression….

Hillary was using her law degree to support and fight for the rights of children, as well as women and migrant workers, before she met Bill—she was working for policy and social changes, just not in politics. She hadn’t considered a career in politics… But when she found herself in a position fight for social and policy change at the political level, she went for it.

Ironically, despite all that was said against her, I really think we saw a more transparent Hillary during this election—when her campaign pulled out her long and extensive resume (in response to Trump’s attempts to discredit her experience), and when she herself admitted that the running-for-election part of politics has never been her strength.

I’m not saying she would have been a perfect president—I just think she had a whole lot more to offer than many people gave/give her credit for.

@MrGrimm888, actually, 42 percent of female voters voted for Trump.

Approximately 63 million people voted for Trump. 42 percent of 63 million is 26.46 million.

There are about 157 million women in the United States.

So, this means that only about 16.8%, just over 1/6th, of the female population of the United States cast a vote for Trump.

^Those numbers are anomalous to me. I’ve read51–53% of female votes went to Trump.

Even if you’re right, that’s a ridiculous number at 42%.

That said, I agree that internalized misogyny is a very prevalent phenomenon in American culture.

@MrGrimm888 Overall, 54% of women voted for Clinton, much higher than the 42% of women who voted for Trump.

@Dutchess_III Hearing that take from you is not surprising. Hillary as a man would have seen the world very differently. I knew she is a lawyer but if she was a he it may not have been the case. If you look at her graduation photos her cap and gown was adorned with the raised fist, a feminist symbol. She was very motivated in that respect. If she was not female perhaps that motivation and drive would not have been there. She also would not likely been privy or had access to the political world like she did as first lady. Hence, my answer. It has nothing to do with “stripping her accomplishments from her” give me a f’ing break.

@cinnamonk I generally like your posts, but this time you’re stats are a bit skewed. The population of the U.S. is estimated to be 324,118,787 at the moment. Approximately 51.7% or 168 million are female, which includes all females, many whom are too young to vote and others whom are ineligible for other reasons, and even others who are unregistered to vote. So, your percentage of women voters of the total population— ” about 16.8%, just over 1/6th”— is in the ballpark within ten million, but is misleading and not very useful because you’re using the total of all females in the US..

Let’s not turn Fluther into another right or left wing propaganda site.

Let’s talk about the number or percentage of registered, eligible women voters instead.

@Espiritus_Corvus I don’t think my stats are skewed. Between 26 and 27 million women, representing between 15.4 and 16.5 percent of the female population of the United States, voted for Trump. This is a fact. We have no idea what percentage of the female population that was ineligible to vote at the time of the election would have voted for Clinton or for Trump, and it’s not really useful to speculate.

In 2012, the voting age population was 241 million people – it’s probably a bit higher now. If half of that is women, then 26.5 million women out of 120.5 is still only about 22%, or less than a quarter of eligible female voters.

The question doesn’t ask whether women are to blame for Trump being elected or for Clinton not being elected. It asks whether Clinton would have been elected had she been a man.

I don’t think anyone has denied women voted for Trump. And of course, women can be critical of other women – sometimes unreasonably so.

However, I do think Clinton faced more criticism based on her appearance and personality because she is a woman. This site sets out some of the ways Clinton was attacked during the 2008 campaign because she is a woman. She was called a bitch (all the cited media quote men calling her a bitch), her clothing was criticised (by men in the media), her voice was criticised (by men), her laugh wasn’t right, her cleavage was criticised, she was described as manly, she was accused of hating men (I don’t have time to look at each section to identify who did the name calling). I really don’t think this campaign was different.

All of these criticisms relate to her personal attributes rather than her ability as a politician or the platform she ran with. This isn’t unusual. I’ve seen the same attacks levelled at female politicians in Australia. Rather than focusing on the politician’s work, her abilities, they focus on what she is wearing, her bad haircut or her voice. In this recent campaign, while Clinton was criticised for her use of private email and conflicts of interest, I know I saw a large amount of criticism that targeted her personal attributes.

You could certainly argue that Trump was also mocked because of his appearance, voice, intelligence etc. And that would be true. However, I don’t believe he received the same quantity of media coverage that focused on such superficial matters. Plus, Clinton was hammered for conflicts of interest and her use of private email – with it being raised again during the campaign. In contrast, I think he got a pretty easy ride in terms of his ‘pussy grabbing’, rape allegations, lies etc. and things like his relationship with Putin and Russia’s interference in the election, fake voting information directed at Clinton supporters etc.. I saw news about the Russian involvement during the campaign and was amazed at how little coverage that idea received. And this same site also reports on criticism of The New York Times for waiting until after the election to publish an expose on Trump’s conflicts of interest.

So I think Clinton, simply because she was a woman, did face a barrage of criticism based on her appearance and personality. In contrast, while there were attacks on Trump’s appearance and personality, he also appeared to get a pretty easy ride on some very serious personality problems.

I haven’t looked for any other research analysing the two campaigns and media coverage of both candidates, but it will be interesting to read that work when it comes out.

No. She could have won if she hadn’t sold out the American people to enrich her donors.

The two most unpopular candidates in history & she still lost out, there’s little doubt in my mind that had she been a man, she’d now be President.

@ARE_you_kidding_me I think the drive would have still been there. It may have manifested itself in different ways, she may have been passionate about different things as a man, but the intelligence and the drive would still be there.
Gender does not determine ambition or intelligence.

@gorillapaws Do you have hard evidence for that claim, or is a case of “Everyone said so.”?

She already was. We called her Bill.

No, but it likely influenced direction. Tiny decisions and experiences would dramatically change the course of someones life. So much so that the likelyhood of going down that same path is nearly zero.

Sure. But the likely hood of success on whatever path they end up on is just as high.

In the case of Hillary I don’t think so.

@Dutchess_III This is not an exhaustive list, but hits on many of the highlights.
-She voted for the war in Iraq.
-She voted for the Patriot Act.
-She voted for the Bankruptcy bill.
-She supported NAFTA,
-She wanted to support the TPP and only backed out at the last second because it was politically untenable.
-She supported the crime bill
-She supported the deregulation of the media which has resulted in 6 major companies controlling nearly all media in the USA.
-She bragged about her support for expanding fracking.
-She was against the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall
-She made weapons deals with middle eastern countries that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation.
-The Foundation itself was used to enrich her family via 3rd parties. (The foundation would would contract out to a company and then that company would pay for speaking fees).
-Under her leadership the State Department fought to bring down the wages of Puerto Ricans so her buddies in the textile industry could offshore sweatshop jobs there more profitably.
-She was totally reckless with classified data at the highest level. If you or I did what she did and didn’t have the political friends in the Justice Department we’d be in jail. Just ask this guy.
-Her paid speeches to Wall Street showed her true colors. Despite pretending to be on the side of the middle class during the primary.
-She put a donor who was unqualified on a nuclear advisory committee with top secret clearance, only having him resign 2 days later when the media called it out.
-She brought on Debbie Wasserman Schultz to her campaign as honorary chair after it was revealed that she violated her obligation for neutrality as the Chair of the DNC and biased the primaries against Sanders.
-She said we should have rigged the elections in Palestine.

If you want to dispute the validity of any of these claims, by all means let me know and I’d be happy to dive deeper.

@gorillapaws All of your links lead to news sights of questionable motives. I’ve heard good things about Mother Jones, but they still all lead nowhere but to each other. All they have in common are a right wing accustions, with they have no proof to offer. They have links in the articles that only lead to fellow right-wing news reporting saying the same thing, again with no proof, just hearsay coupled with intelligent writing skills. It’s like a big circle jerk.

Still wondering why she won’t come out.

^^ All of your links lead to news sights of questionable motives.
More “fake news” sites? Guess I have best stick with Reuters and Al Jazeera.

The power of denial is strong with Clinton supporters.

@Dutchess_III All of the criticisms I listed are objective facts. I’m sorry you don’t want to believe it, but now you understand why many progressives were so pissed off that the DNC rigged the primary for such a terrible candidate. Many of the sources are referencing the leaked emails which are PRIMARY SOURCE documents. Christ, the last link has an audio clip of Clinton herself talking…. unless you think that is fake?