2016 if Hillary were male

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

discuss with maps

Hillary Clinton: 341 EV's, 50%
Donald Trump: 197 EV's, 46%

[Mr. Morden]

Male-Hillary being married to a man (and a former president no less) probably would have prompted a homophobic backlash.

[White Trash]

If male Hillary Clinton had all the same issues and had the same persona.

[Mr. Smith]

If male Hillary Clinton had all the same issues and had the same persona.

He'd lose NH too! (you know why *wink*)

[Phony Moderate]

The prospect of her as the first women president was about the most inspiring thing about her. Change her to male and you'd basically have Michael Dukakis. So the map would probably look something like this:

Possibly VA and NM would go to Trump too. NJ, DE, CT and RI would be in single digits. Trump wins the PV. Also, turnout is several points lower, and Trump does somewhat better with Hispanics and women.

However, there is much less chance that he'd have actually been nominated.

[heatcharger]

^^ People who voted for Hillary for the intrigue of the first women president were already liberals who would've voted Democrat anyway. That's a silly map.

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

You guys have to remember that emailgate wouldn't have been an issue if Hillary were male. Bush also did the exact same thing Hillary did and used a private email server, but nobody cared. Donald Trump was unarguably more corrupt than Hillary. Donald Trump had a plethora of scandals such as Trump University, tax returns, his history of breaking labor laws, etc. The only major Hillary scandal was her emails. Yet, Hillary is perceived as more corrupt because gender effects the way people perceive things. Politics is all about perception, not reality. Humans are designed to judge females more harshly and we hold them to higher standards. It's why Trump's scandals were taken a lot less seriously even though they're arguably much worse.

Also, another major reason why Hillary lost was because many people were put-off by her personality. According to voter studies, many people voted against Hillary solely because she's unlikeable. Females who seek positions of leadership will always be seen as unlikeable. When a female acts strong/independent/tough, she's seen as a bitch. When a female acts feminine, she's seen as weak and not tough enough for leadership positions (like the presidency). It's a lose-lose situation.

Here's are two interesting articles on hidden sexism and the 2016 election:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html

Lol @ the notion that Hillary's gender was more of an asset than a liability. Hillary being female obviously hurt her more than it helped her. It's why her email scandal was taken seriously and nobody cared about Trump's scandals. It's why she was perceived as unlikeable and untrustworthy.

[🕴🏼Melior🕴🏼]

^^ People who voted for Hillary for the intrigue of the first women president were already liberals who would've voted Democrat anyway. That's a silly map.

[Mr. Smith]

You guys have to remember that emailgate wouldn't have been an issue if Hillary were male. Bush also did the exact same thing Hillary did and used a private email server, but nobody cared. Donald Trump was unarguably more corrupt than Hillary. Donald Trump had a plethora of scandals such as Trump University, tax returns, his history of breaking labor laws, etc. The only major Hillary scandal was her emails. Yet, Hillary is perceived as more corrupt because gender effects the way people perceive things. Politics is all about perception, not reality. Humans are designed to judge females more harshly and we hold them to higher standards. It's why Trump's scandals were taken a lot less seriously even though they're arguably much worse.

Also, another major reason why Hillary lost was because many people were put-off by her personality. According to voter studies, many people voted against Hillary solely because she's unlikeable. Females who seek positions of leadership will always be seen as unlikeable. When a female acts strong/independent/tough, she's seen as a bitch. When a female acts feminine, she's seen as weak and not tough enough for leadership positions (like the presidency). It's a lose-lose situation.

Here's are two interesting articles on hidden sexism and the 2016 election:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html

Lol @ the notion that Hillary's gender was more of an asset than a liability. Hillary being female obviously hurt her more than it helped her. It's why her email scandal was taken seriously and nobody cared about Trump's scandals. It's why she was perceived as unlikeable and untrustworthy.

No, even with her being unlikable and all that, it still helped her.

People would've cried "Tricky Dick" all over again if it were Hillard Clinton running. You wouldn't have white knights all over place putting up articles and making arguments like you and Hagrid...Rick Lazio probably would've won 2000 if it were Hillard Clinton.

Someone like Sanders would've rolled the floor in the primaries if all the same positions were taken, she'd have ended up like John Edwards...nay- worse than John Edwards in '08.

It is that ambition and aloofness and I daresay slickness that got her as far she did.



If she were younger than she is, she'd probably be able to pull off a '68 style comeback. Likewise, if Tricky Dick was almost 70 against JFK, that last press conference would've been earlier and it would've stuck.

[Suburbia]

You guys have to remember that emailgate wouldn't have been an issue if Hillary were male. Bush also did the exact same thing Hillary did and used a private email server, but nobody cared. Donald Trump was unarguably more corrupt than Hillary. Donald Trump had a plethora of scandals such as Trump University, tax returns, his history of breaking labor laws, etc. The only major Hillary scandal was her emails. Yet, Hillary is perceived as more corrupt because gender effects the way people perceive things. Politics is all about perception, not reality. Humans are designed to judge females more harshly and we hold them to higher standards. It's why Trump's scandals were taken a lot less seriously even though they're arguably much worse.

Also, another major reason why Hillary lost was because many people were put-off by her personality. According to voter studies, many people voted against Hillary solely because she's unlikeable. Females who seek positions of leadership will always be seen as unlikeable. When a female acts strong/independent/tough, she's seen as a bitch. When a female acts feminine, she's seen as weak and not tough enough for leadership positions (like the presidency). It's a lose-lose situation.

Here's are two interesting articles on hidden sexism and the 2016 election:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/hidden-sexism/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/stop-pretending-you-dont-_b_12191766.html

Lol @ the notion that Hillary's gender was more of an asset than a liability. Hillary being female obviously hurt her more than it helped her. It's why her email scandal was taken seriously and nobody cared about Trump's scandals. It's why she was perceived as unlikeable and untrustworthy.

Then how did Margaret Thatcher get elected in the UK? How did Golda Meir get elected in Israel? How did Angela Merkel get elected in Germany? How did Christie Todd Whitman get elected governor in N.J?

[Hoosier_Nick]

^^ People who voted for Hillary for the intrigue of the first women president were already liberals who would've voted Democrat anyway. That's a silly map.

[Intell]

She'd do slightly worse, as turnout would be even lower on the democratic side.

[Beet]

The opposition would not nearly have been as strong, notably in the hacker community, FBI, reddit, etc. Sanders "insurgency" far smaller. Closest analogy Joe Biden.

[Sumner 1868]

What if Reagan shot someone on 5th Avenue in June 1980?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If Hillary were male she wouldn't be the nominee. A large part of her appeal was "the first woman President?" Same goes for Obama in 2008.

And it's not like it was a bad thing or something.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

The prospect of her as the first women president was about the most inspiring thing about her. Change her to male and you'd basically have Michael Dukakis. So the map would probably look something like this:

Possibly VA and NM would go to Trump too. NJ, DE, CT and RI would be in single digits. Trump wins the PV. Also, turnout is several points lower, and Trump does somewhat better with Hispanics and women.

However, there is much less chance that he'd have actually been nominated.

This.

I actually thought "Michael Dukakis" after reading the topic, but before reading this post.

[Lord Admirale]

>implying Hillary's gender caused her downfall

I concur with the other posts comparing Mr. Hillary as another Michael Dukakis. Without being a woman, she's just an un-motivating and dull prepackaged politician with a dark record and a dirty past.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

[RI]

Hillary wouldn't have even come close to the nomination. Doubt she'd even be in national politics.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Hillary wouldn't have even come close to the nomination. Doubt she'd even be in national politics.

-Nah; there would have been no female advantage, but the Black and Hispanic base would have carried Her through, anyway, even if by narrow margins.

[Fargobison]

Hillary wouldn't have even come close to the nomination. Doubt she'd even be in national politics.

Agreed, no way they clear the field like they did if HRC was a man.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I really don't think that's true. Joni Ernst has the likability factor, which is why she beat Bruce Braley. Hillary just doesn't. Joe Biden has it. Rahm Emanuel doesn't. Barack Obama has it. Ted Cruz doesn't (nobody's less likeable than him, really!).

Rahm, I think, is the most similar example. People see Hillary as being incredibly guarded and calculating, like Rahm. And Rahm, even without the baggage, could never win a presidential election.

My female boss is independent and strong and one of the best and most well-liked leaders I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, let alone working for. She has ten employees that are both pushed to achieve their best and regularly shown that they are recognized and valued. Many other women within my company are the same way. And we both live in a highly conservative area that backed Romney by a 3:1 margin.

But Hillary just doesn't have the likability factor.

[JoshPA]

I think a male hillary would still lose.

[JoshPA]

at most she may slightly better and by that may a hundred or 1000 ore votes in the south but that all nothing else but the idea of a gay bill clinton is laughable.

[SWE]