Lots of Americans Would Rather Sell Out to the Russians Than Have a Woman Lead America

[Solomon]

And, the brown man scared the shit out of 'em with his competent stewardship.

If it weren't for the qualified woman and the competent brown man, Trumps antics would never be accepted.

[blueinredohio]

1. Sad but true

[asuhornets]

2. +1,000,000

I can't believe anyone voted for this man. His supporters has to hear and see what is going on.

[Trial_By_Fire]

3. Depends on the women... Just like it depends on the man....

[Skittles]

12. bullshit

Hillary was the most qualified presidential candidate ever, and she was held to impossible standards. Trump was the least qualified candidate ever, and he was held to NO STANDARDS AT ALL.

[smirkymonkey]

24. +1000

Women, blacks, jews, gays need not apply. It doesn't matter how qualified or competent you are, there is a multitude out there who will reject you outright simply because of who you are.

[Trial_By_Fire]

25. Qualifications are subjective...

Everyone has their own ideas as to qualifications and why one votes for a candidate.

And yes tRump is maybe even worse than GW Bush.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

13. They're already on Elizabeth Warrens case. Any strong woman i.e. Pelosi will have same reaction.

[Cha]

17. Hillary would have a made a great President.

[JI7]

4. that really is what it's about for his supporters

[Dawson Leery]

5. Many polls show this to be so.

Sad.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. I'm not sure if it's a woman, or one particular woman

The sample size is too small yet to say for sure.

[Blue_true]

7. I think Hillary was well qualified to be President. But she didn't strongly address some things.

I hate to put the burden on the woman, but any female politician that has an unfaithful husband need to be prepared to divorce him OR explain why she stayed with him. In addition, Hillary should have released ALL of her paid speech transcripts instead of being coy about them, there was nothing there, but she let the lie that she was hiding something sink in. Lastly, Hillary was an intensely private person running for an office where a person's life is an open book and only con artists of Trump's skill can get around that.

[LoveMyCali]

9. Not only is this total bullshit

but it would never even be asked of a man. She owes no one any explanations about her marriage and speeches she gave while a private citizen aren't any ones business either.

[Solomon]

11. Agreed. Absolutely! Marriage is sacred and has major privileges the chief one being it's

nobody else's damned business. "For richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, til death do we part" and all that.
The why of a marriage is mostly clearly nobody else's damned business.

[Cha]

20. Oh BULLoney

[Squinch]

30. Jesus. So female politicians have to explain their marraiges or have divorces for appearance sake.

But only "female politicians."

Kay. Guess we all know where we stand now.

[EllieBC]

31. That's utter crap. Why should she be expected to do either of those things?

Why she stayed married is her own business and her husband's business. Not yours, not mine.

We don't expect these things of men and this is exactly what feminists have been fighting. We shouldn't have to explain our personal lives to be "likeable".

[athena]

10. This is not Sarah Palin we're talking about.

If it were, you'd have a point. As it is, it's clear that you're grasping at straws.

Hillary Clinton was an excellent candidate -- a highly intelligent, experienced, and sensible liberal statesman. The only thing going against her was that she didn't happen to be a man.

You can fool yourself into thinking that she was not "the right woman", but you're not going to fool those of us who are all too familiar with the kinds of sexist excuses that are used to avoid promoting women every day in the workplace.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. I think Hillary Clinton was well qualified and I voted for her

I wouldn't go so far as to say she was an excellent candidate. The fact is she was hated by a lot of people. Their hatred was baseless and stupid, but it was there. She had some of the highest negatives we've ever seen. Was that deserved? No, but it was there. As a campaigner she could seem aloof and stiff. In fact, that was the trait that SNL often went to to parody her. That perception was there, whether it was accurate or not. I simply don't think you can take this candidate in particular, with all her notoriety, and all her baggage (deserved or not) and make a blanket statement about women candidates. She's a bit of a unique case.

[MichMan]

27. Don't understand why people want to blame it on one specific reason or another

No one can pin anything down to just one main cause. While she was aptly qualified, calling her the most qualified ever in the entire history of the country was a bit of a stretch.

1) She was the establishment candidate in a year where many voters wanted anything but.

2) Same as above, many people were just tired of having another Clinton or Bush in the White House again. That is a main reason why Jeb, who was favored by the insiders, lost so bad in the primaries.

3) Only once in my lifetime, has the same party won the presidency three times in a row

4) As stated by others, Hillary's negative were pretty high which had the effect of galvanizing some to show up just to vote against her

5) The AA vote was never going to turn out for Hillary in the same numbers as for President Obama

6) While it was ginned up & Comey interfered, the campaign did a terrible job handling the whole e mail situation, causing it to keep lingering in the news cycle.

[Cha]

18. Hillary got 66 Million Votes and she is who we're

talking about.. this past election.

[Squinch]

8. Yep. And you will get many people telling you that it

depends on the woman.

Most of us know better. Especially most of us women.

[Cha]

19. Yeah, what's up with all the

"depends on which woman"?.. We're talking about the last election and it's Hillary.. who got 66 Million votes but there were so many who were brainwashed by Fake fox's HDS.. and all the M$M's HDS

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. As someone who has been labeled a bitch and "scary" when I had a powerful job along with other

females, I can say that the only women of "power" I have seen get away from this was Sarah Palin and all they talked about was her appearance, she was also called a "bimbo" all the time.

[Jim Lane]

15. If the general election had been Fiorina versus a man...

In a contest of Fiorina versus Sanders, O'Malley, Chafee, or Webb, the overwhelming majority of the voters would have voted for the same party they actually voted for when the gender shoe was on the other foot.

As for the actual election, the candidacy of a woman was a positive for some voters and a negative for others. It's absolutely true that there are misogynists who were reluctant to vote for a woman. It's also true, however, that some people who were on the fence were influenced to vote for Clinton because of the historic nature of her candidacy ("It's time we had a woman President&quot . I don't know whether there's any reliable information about which effect was greater.

Also bear in mind that most of the misogynists vote Republican anyway. They would have had to grit their teeth to vote for Fiorina (or, in other years, for Michele Bachmann or Elizabeth Dole) but they would have done it.

[bettyellen]

26. Interesting how you need to completely discount swing voters in your arguement...

Especially since it was a razor thin loss. Rationalizations abound, it seems.

[Jim Lane]

29. Interesting that you need to completely mischaracterize my argument

I thought I made it clear that some swing voters were influenced by the gender factor -- some being influenced to vote for Clinton and some being influenced to vote against her (or to stay home).

Yes, it was close. That doesn't shed any light on the question that I noted and said I couldn't answer -- which effect was greater. If you have any hard data on that subject, I'd be glad to see it.

[KingCharlemagne]

21. Lots of (white) Americans would gladly return to chattel slavery, rather than accept

racial equality.

IOW, Trump proves there is absolutely no limit to how low they will sink to preserve white supremacy.

[LaydeeBug]

22. *nope*. This coup would have happened with *ANY* Dem, because like it or not

the kGOPee party has been treating liberals as their *enemy* instead of their fellow countrymen.

*We* are the enemy. Not Russia. Not "radical Muslim terrorists" (<<<-----they just conflate them <sic> with us)

[AgadorSparticus]

23. They are still yapping about bengazhi. What a bunch of idiotic tools

No really. I can't believe they are hung up on it. Mind numbing.

[LWolf]

28. As someone

who abhors identity politics, I can say I have no problem with black, brown, or any other skin pigment in a POTUS; I also have no problem with the gender of any POTUS, including whether or not that gender is that associated with the reproductive plumbing any was born with.

I only want a POTUS that represents the 99%, isn't corrupt, and doesn't use racial, ethnic, gender, orientation, faith, or any other identity to distract people from what is going on with the issues that affect us.

DISCLAIMER: THIS STATEMENT SAYS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE BROWN MAN OR THE WHITE WOMAN YOU REFER TO. IT IS NOT AN ATTACK, OR EVEN A MILD CRITICISM.

I'm simply pointing out that identity politics are more harmful than helpful in the long run, and simply feed the hate and dysfunction of those "lots of Americans" you are referring to. I'd rather defeat them than feed them.