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

[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.

If I were supporting a candidate who lied under oath, whose spouse lied under oath while occupying the same office, who entered a campaign under FBI investigation, the results of which were that she was considered extremely careless in handling classified information, and whose e-mails reveal, at a minimum, the appearance of impropriety, of "pay for play" in her relationship with the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary of State, then the above would be most comforting.  And I'm sure Hillary, if she manages to lose this election, will blame sexism, bigotry, and the like for her defeat.  She's a living, breathing case of eternal victimstance, which, oddly enough, is a posture commonly taken by criminals; it's never their fault.

Democrat John Gilligan lost his re-election bid for Ohio Governor in 1974, one of the most heavily Democratic years in history.  When he was asked why he lost, he stated, flatly, that the voters' verdict was a personal repudiation of himself.  And Gilligan wasn't expected to lose; he had no scandals, and it was a Democratic year, so he came to this conclusion.  And he was probably right; he was someone that did not cultivate likeability, and he lost to a Republican (James Rhodes) that was extremely likeable.  Gilligan took responsibility for his defeat.  You won't see Hillary Clinton come near to that standard of owning the loss.  As she is the Democratic Nixon, I would expect her concession speech (if she loses) to resemble Nixon's performance when he lost the 1962 California Governor's race.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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

lol

I'm sure as a white male, you are an expert in this matter.

Of course she's been aided more than hindered.  If she were a male, the DNC wouldn't have cleared the field for her, wouldn't have trashed Sanders, wouldn't have pre-empted Biden.  It's not that she's this great candidate with no baggage and a powerful track record.  Saying otherwise is to be a combination of willful blindness and intellectual dishonesty.

[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. 

[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.