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

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

There's a difference between giving two flying farts and having the DNC effectively clear the field for you to the point where your only competition is an aging socialist who isn't really a Democrat is your competition.  If Hillary were not a woman, Biden would have been a candidate (and a formidable one), and there may have been 3-4 other formidable candidates.

To say Donald Trump benefits from his gender because he's a male is hypothesizing.  That's a maybe, even a likely if it were.  Hillary CLEARLY benefits, and it pains her supporters to say this because they have been engaged in victimstance politics for forever and a day.  This goes double for the Feminist Left, which rates female execs kicking in glass ceilings as higher priorities than hungry people getting fed; they are no better than the globalist corporate profiteers that place corporate profits before the needs of ordinary people who are up against the wall, economically.  Hillary's supporters have used gender politics to advance the candidacy of an already privileged candidate with flaws that would have disqualified any number of candidates from even running. 

[Enduro]

She won't claim it's the reason, but a reason.

[Bismarck]

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.

Ignored.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

Ignored.

Are you really so ignorant, stubborn, and insecure that you can't even admit that gender is, at the very least, an immeasurable factor in how Hillary Clinton is percieved? Even if it's unintentional?

If so, my goodness. The obstacles we face in society are epitomized by people like you and Fuzzy Bear. It's frankly shameful.

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

Ignored.

Are you really so ignorant, stubborn, and insecure that you can't even admit that gender is, at the very least, an immeasurable factor in how Hillary Clinton is percieved? Even if it's unintentional?

I so, my goodness. The obstacles we face in society are epitomized by people like you and Fuzzy Bear. It's frankly shameful.

Yet, in spite of people like that, females have been making great strides in society to the point where we might finally have a female President, after over 200 years of strictly males only.

People with backwards opinions don't count for much any longer. Their numbers are waning.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

This

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Ignored.

Are you really so ignorant, stubborn, and insecure that you can't even admit that gender is, at the very least, an immeasurable factor in how Hillary Clinton is percieved? Even if it's unintentional?

If so, my goodness. The obstacles we face in society are epitomized by people like you and Fuzzy Bear. It's frankly shameful.

Hillary Clinton transcends gender.  She's irrevocably attached to Bill Clinton, and what he does and has done. 

Obstacles? 

It's kind of mind-boggling that people like yourself are incapable of acknowledging that at least liberal Democratic women get in political hot water not because of their gender, but because of their conduct.  I'll give you credit for being objective on Michelle Bachmann, so I suppose that's a starting point for objectivity.

Hillary is a woman whose failures are real, and they are NOT being magnified because of her gender.  When you get rich in office through conflicts of interest and you lie about it and break rules to cover it up (e-mails), it brings blowback, regardless of gender.  That Hillary is the nominee is evidence of her gender advantage; any male nominee with her baggage would have been pressured out of the race by the DNC.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So in other words (just to clarify)... you really are so ignorant, stubborn, and insecure that you can't even admit that gender is, at the very least, an immeasurable factor in how Hillary Clinton is perceived. Even if it's unintentional.

Got it.

[Ogre Mage]

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.

Heh, a female president who did that would never have survived the scandal.  She would be forced out of office as the NASTY SLUT I mentioned earlier.  Surely you are not so blind as to this double standard.

[Sir Mohamed]

No, at least not publicly. But ain't gonna happen. She'll be prez coming January 20.