If Hillary loses, will she claim sexism as a reason for it?

[RI]

Clinton has been aided by her sex far more than hindered by it.

How do you figure she's been aided by her gender? I think you are deluding yourself.

Uh... No one would give two flying farts about Clinton if she were a man. Her sex is her entire selling point.

[Ogre Mage]

If Donald Trump was a woman, he would not have been able to get away with 20% of the ridiculously offensive things he has said.  He would have been dismissed as a CRAZY B*TCH, a la Michele Bachmann and gotten nowhere.

If a female candidate had Donald Trump's marital history, she would be called a NASTY SLUT and deemed unfit for higher office.

If Donald Trump was a female candidate who refused to study the issues and said we could default on our national debt obligations, she would be dismissed as DUMB B*TCH and banished to Palin Island, especially after she touted her high IQ.

Yet in spite having no political experience, refusing to study the issues and wallowing in ignorance, Trump has gotten a major party nomination.  The first woman to get a major party nomination had to serve 8 years as a U.S. Senator and 4 years as a U.S. Secretary of State before she had that honor.

SOMEONE is hugely benefiting from their gender in this race and it isn't Clinton.

[Maxwell]

Clinton will concede like a gentlewoman. It's the Orange Millionaire you gotta worry about.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clinton will concede like a gentlewoman. It's the Orange Millionaire you gotta worry about.

She can handle this, especially in public.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

It's scary that I apparently voted in this poll yesterday but don't remember doing so at all.

Hillary-emails syndrome >:S

[Ogre Mage]

Clinton has been aided by her sex far more than hindered by it.

How do you figure she's been aided by her gender? I think you are deluding yourself.

Uh... No one would give two flying farts about Clinton if she were a man. Her sex is her entire selling point.

No one would give "two flying farts" about a presidential candidate who had been a U.S. Senator for 8 years and U.S. Secretary of State for 4 years?  Her male opponent has managed to get the nomination despite a complete lack of such credentials.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't believe the whole "Hillary wouldn't have gotten 5% of the primary vote if she was a man" shtick, but you can't deny that her gender was a big selling point in the primary and is a big part of why the field was cleared for her.

[Beet]

She was a woman in 2008, and the DNC didn't clear the field for her. In fact, I distinctly remember Kerry and Kennedy both endorsing Obama, and senior Senate Dems urging Obama to run back in 2006.

IMO, she got more than enough votes in 2008 to earn her a party nomination, and that's why the field was cleared for her. It was her behavior and good character on display in 2008 that made her popular with party leaders (just as it has for all the people she's worked with throughout her life), not her gender.

[Wells]

Sexism would be a large part of it. It is impossible to look at her as a candidate or form an opinion of her without looking through the lens of—and having our opinions of her conditioned by—gender. I garauntee her trustworthiness and likability numbers would be way, way better if she was a man. Her ambition is socially threatening, and the large target that has always been on her back would not have been there if she hadn't entered the man's world of public policy in the 1990s.

If I were supporting a candidate who lied under oath,

You are. 

[Wells]

Hillary Clinton never invoked sexism when she lost New Hampshire and Michigan this year. She didn't in 2008. I see no reason why she would this year.  Anyone who thinks so is a hack. 

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

She was a woman in 2008, and the DNC didn't clear the field for her. In fact, I distinctly remember Kerry and Kennedy both endorsing Obama, and senior Senate Dems urging Obama to run back in 2006.

IMO, she got more than enough votes in 2008 to earn her a party nomination, and that's why the field was cleared for her. It was her behavior and good character on display in 2008 that made her popular with party leaders (just as it has for all the people she's worked with throughout her life), not her gender.

In 2008 it was considered "acceptable" for Obama to run because he would also break a glass ceiling, and some establishment folk probably thought the black glass ceiling was the easier glass ceiling to break. Edwards, as the former VP nominee, would have received less shunning than the typical opposition candidate, and with no one holding a 30 point lead like Clinton did when Biden said he wasn't running in 2016, probably felt he had a notable chance of winning. The rest of the field is oddly parallel to this year - Richardson is the basic equivalent of O'Malley (although without the stain of being succeeded by a republican at the time; Richardson was still governor), and the rest were Chafee/Webb, not necessarily ideologically, but in terms of strength as a candidate.

[Beet]

She was a woman in 2008, and the DNC didn't clear the field for her. In fact, I distinctly remember Kerry and Kennedy both endorsing Obama, and senior Senate Dems urging Obama to run back in 2006.

IMO, she got more than enough votes in 2008 to earn her a party nomination, and that's why the field was cleared for her. It was her behavior and good character on display in 2008 that made her popular with party leaders (just as it has for all the people she's worked with throughout her life), not her gender.

In 2008 it was considered "acceptable" for Obama to run because he would also break a glass ceiling, and some establishment folk probably thought the black glass ceiling was the easier glass ceiling to break. Edwards, as the former VP nominee, would have received less shunning than the typical opposition candidate, and with no one holding a 30 point lead like Clinton did when Biden said he wasn't running in 2016, probably felt he had a notable chance of winning. The rest of the field is oddly parallel to this year - Richardson is the basic equivalent of O'Malley (although without the stain of being succeeded by a republican at the time; Richardson was still governor), and the rest were Chafee/Webb, not necessarily ideologically, but in terms of strength as a candidate.

Yeah, but if you think being a woman is sufficient for the DNC to clear the field for you, none of that should have mattered.

[RI]

She was a woman in 2008, and the DNC didn't clear the field for her. In fact, I distinctly remember Kerry and Kennedy both endorsing Obama, and senior Senate Dems urging Obama to run back in 2006.

IMO, she got more than enough votes in 2008 to earn her a party nomination, and that's why the field was cleared for her. It was her behavior and good character on display in 2008 that made her popular with party leaders (just as it has for all the people she's worked with throughout her life), not her gender.

In 2008 it was considered "acceptable" for Obama to run because he would also break a glass ceiling, and some establishment folk probably thought the black glass ceiling was the easier glass ceiling to break. Edwards, as the former VP nominee, would have received less shunning than the typical opposition candidate, and with no one holding a 30 point lead like Clinton did when Biden said he wasn't running in 2016, probably felt he had a notable chance of winning. The rest of the field is oddly parallel to this year - Richardson is the basic equivalent of O'Malley (although without the stain of being succeeded by a republican at the time; Richardson was still governor), and the rest were Chafee/Webb, not necessarily ideologically, but in terms of strength as a candidate.

Yeah, but if you think being a woman is sufficient for the DNC to clear the field for you, none of that should have mattered.

Well, it's not just being a woman. The same would happen for pretty much any high profile long-suffering-minority member, especially one for whom it was their "turn" to get the Dem nomination.

Having two such candidates potentially cancels each other out.

[Beet]

Carole Moseley Braun in '04?

[Hermit For Peace]

If Donald Trump was a woman, he would not have been able to get away with 20% of the ridiculously offensive things he has said.  He would have been dismissed as a CRAZY B*TCH, a la Michele Bachmann and gotten nowhere.

If a female candidate had Donald Trump's marital history, she would be called a NASTY SLUT and deemed unfit for higher office.

If Donald Trump was a female candidate who refused to study the issues and said we could default on our national debt obligations, she would be dismissed as DUMB B*TCH and banished to Palin Island, especially after she touted her high IQ.

Yet in spite having no political experience, refusing to study the issues and wallowing in ignorance, Trump has gotten a major party nomination.  The first woman to get a major party nomination had to serve 8 years as a U.S. Senator and 4 years as a U.S. Secretary of State before she had that honor.

SOMEONE is hugely benefiting from their gender in this race and it isn't Clinton.

Wow! Nice post.

I think you nailed it.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Carole Moseley Braun in '04?

Everyone knew that breaking two glass ceilings (black+woman) at once would be impossible, especially against an incumbent president.

[Beet]

Well I don't disagree that a strong desire to break the glass ceiling helped Clinton clear the field other than Sanders, and that was probably a silly tendency by the Democrats. Still, in that's with 2014 or 2008 as a starting point... I'd still argue that if you look at Hillary's statistical chances at birth in 1947, as the daughter of a middle class Chicago family, of becoming president, it would be somewhat lower than Trump's chances, as the son of a wealthy real estate developer.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sexism would be a large part of it. It is impossible to look at her as a candidate or form an opinion of her without looking through the lens of—and having our opinions of her conditioned by—gender. I garauntee her trustworthiness and likability numbers would be way, way better if she was a man. Her ambition is socially threatening, and the large target that has always been on her back would not have been there if she hadn't entered the man's world of public policy in the 1990s.

Her trustworthiness and likability numbers would be much worse if she were a man.

No. It all started because she chose to be different kind of First Lady, it's how the GOP has so effectively tarnished her reputation.

[Figueira]

I initially voted yes, but

No, but she'd certainly be justified in doing so.

[Lincoln Republican]

No.

She will be graceful in defeat, I am convinced of it.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No.

She will would be graceful in defeat, I am convinced of it.

Important.

[IceSpear]

Clinton has been aided by her sex far more than hindered by it.

How do you figure she's been aided by her gender? I think you are deluding yourself.

Uh... No one would give two flying farts about Clinton if she were a man. Her sex is her entire selling point.

If she were a man she'd be beating Trump by 50 points.

See, I can make dumb claims with no evidence too!

[HAnnA MArin County]

Sexism would be a large part of it. It is impossible to look at her as a candidate or form an opinion of her without looking through the lens of—and having our opinions of her conditioned by—gender. I garauntee her trustworthiness and likability numbers would be way, way better if she was a man. Her ambition is socially threatening, and the large target that has always been on her back would not have been there if she hadn't entered the man's world of public policy in the 1990s.

Her trustworthiness and likability numbers would be much worse if she were a man.

No. It all started because she chose to be different kind of First Lady, it's how the GOP has so effectively tarnished her reputation.

^^ thank you. She changed the "traditional" norms of a First Lady, and conservatives don't approve of anyone who doesn't adhere to their narrow-minded gender roles and what's "appropriate" for a woman. Had she just been a good girl and kept her nose out of the men's business of policy and politics and tended to more ladylike matters such as picking new linens for the curtains or redecorating the Lincoln Bedroom, her "trustworthiness" and "likability" wouldn't be an issue today. Conservatives (mostly males) are threatened by strong, intelligent, powerful women, and likely even more threatened when this said women is a strong liberal/progressive, so yes, they've been able to throw the kitchen sink at her by attacking her ambition, her marriage and her family, her physical appearance (her hair, her pantsuits), and yet she's still standing and is 99.99 percent likely to become President. Through all their lies, smear campaigns, and yes, the "vast right-wing conspiracies," Republicans have not been able to destroy Hillary Clinton, and it doesn't look like they're going to be able to do so in a few months, either.

[Erich Maria Remarque]

If Donald Trump was a woman, he would not have been able to get away with 20% of the ridiculously offensive things he has said.  He would have been dismissed as a CRAZY B*TCH, a la Michele Bachmann and gotten nowhere.

If a female candidate had Donald Trump's marital history, she would be called a NASTY SLUT and deemed unfit for higher office.

If Donald Trump was a female candidate who refused to study the issues and said we could default on our national debt obligations, she would be dismissed as DUMB B*TCH and banished to Palin Island, especially after she touted her high IQ.

Yet in spite having no political experience, refusing to study the issues and wallowing in ignorance, Trump has gotten a major party nomination.  The first woman to get a major party nomination had to serve 8 years as a U.S. Senator and 4 years as a U.S. Secretary of State before she had that honor.

SOMEONE is hugely benefiting from their gender in this race and it isn't Clinton.

If Jeb!/Kasich/Rubio/You name it/Cruz were saying the things Trump've been saying they've all been destroyed.
If someone would start his or her campaign by accusing Mexicans for being rapist, he or she were doomed.

Someone is hugely benefiting from being Trump — it's Trump himself.

And could Trump get there, if he forgave his mighty wife who, while being President, were receiving cunnilingus from some young boy, just because Trump wants so badly to get into power? No, he would be dismissed as DUMB P*SSY LOSER.

[Phony Moderate]

Hillary's main problem isn't that she's a woman but that she's not a very likeable woman. Unlikeable women tend to struggle more than unlikeable men unless they are political geniuses. And Hillary isn't a political genius but Thatcher, another unlikeable woman, was.

Moderate Heroish answer I know.