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

[Hermit For Peace]

I don't think so. She's been ahead in the polls for quite awhile now, so that's an indication right there that people will vote for her.

If she loses, she should probably claim the election was rigged! lol

[Hermit For Peace]

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.

[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.

[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.