>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.
If she were male, Hilliard Rodham would likely not be the ex-spouse of a Governor and President. If that were the case, such a person would likely not have had the Bill Clinton baggage to deal with, and likely would not have had a mysterious "foundation" that turned out to be a huge negative.
All of that is negated by the fact that being a female is what made her candidacy viable. Let's say that the male Hillary's Health Care role in the Bill Clinton organization got her/him elected to the Senate from NY State in 2000. And let's say that this Senator, Hilliard Rodham, was actually named Secretary of State. What then?
Here, you MIGHT have a John Kerry. Except that Kerry is a Forbes, married to the widow Heinz. John Kerry MIGHT have won over Trump in 2016, but Kerry is another guy who can't help appearing elitist and making an untimely gaffe. Hilliard Rodham also would be coming from a demographic that was already in the bag for the Democrats (being from New York). I doubt such a candidate could be nominated, and I'm far from convinced that such a candidate would have held MI, WI, and PA in 2016.