Hillary Clinton is not a good candidate (based on ability to win)

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

this country is not ready to elect a female President

Give me a break. How delusional, as typical of the average smug Clinton supporter.

I bet we weren't ready to elect a black president either?

You seriously cannot accept that gender partly structures the way people—from voters to the press—respond to Hillary Clinton? I guess I've forgotten how good wilful ignorance feels, eh?  

Seriously, you should definitely consider to change your nick to The Woman Card. It is the only argument you come with

Accusing someone of playing the woman card is just another way that benefactors of the status quo allow themselves to feel good about gender inequality, sexism, and enabling society's current patriarchal order. You are small-minded to the extreme.

I asked a simple question. You refused to answer it, perhaps because it makes you feel uncomfortable to recognize your loud-mouthed privilege.

She plays the gender card all the time.  And well she should; driving the gender gap through the roof is probably her best path to victory.  She might be in a firmer lead had she picked a female running mate other than Elizabeth Warren.  (McCaskill or Klobuchar would have been good picks.)

And she relies on a form of "female privilege"; the ability to receive support when attacked intensely, regardless of the merits of the attack.  Hillary, for all her 70s Feminist Bent, isn't beyond playing the damsel in distress when it suits her.  And, yes, she's not beyond "Standing By Her Man" when it serves her purposes; without Bill Clinton, Hillary would have been nothing more than a wonkish staffer at a think tank, given her substandard people skills.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Hillary's strong suit is in debate and I'd assume that's what her campaign is really leaning on to get her the win in November. We haven't seen how her and Trump handle a debate stage together, but if she allows him walk all over her, then I'd agree with you.

The debate will be pretty high stakes. 

How Trump communicates to his weaker supporters and undecided will, of course, be crucial.  He's underrated as a communicator.  I remember a piece earlier this year by Byron York who neatly explained Trump's communication genius.  He seems to be rambling, but he is able to (A) touch on the bullet points his crowd comes for, and (B) dish out a helping of celebrity gossip, which crowds of all kinds eat up these days.  That worked well in the nomination process.  The debates are another animal, but who's to say Trump couldn't have his "There you go again!" moment. 

For all the folks who want to blame "sexism" for Hillary's unpopularity, let me suggest that she's the Democratic model of a cross between Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney.  Ruthless and tone-deaf and unattractive when these qualities come to the surface.  Both of these folks were smart, but Nixon was secretive and ruthless and Romney is a tone-deaf elitist.  Hillary combines these two qualities and wonders why she's unpopular.  She's as genuine as when Mitt Romney, on a Southern swing, spoke about his love for "cheesy grits".  (Again, out of the wellsprings of the heart . . .)

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Where does idiocy come from, I wonder?

Er.......

Indeed, as we now have our answer: the Rust Belt.

Give it a break

The ironic part about all of this is, of course, that FAR more Democrats disagree with Hagrid's putrid attitude toward these people - judging by posts on here, conversation with Democrats in real life and the recent actions/statements of Democratic leaders - and he's just as out of place among his fellow Democrats as he felt among the Republicans of 2012.

Can confirm. Am Democrat, can't stand the attitude either.

He got lots of support for his assertions here before Hillary lost the election though.  I guess defeat is a more effective teacher than victory.