Did Hillary Clinton lose because she was a woman? The DNC establishment is trying to to spin her defeat as evidence that the United States as a country is still unwilling to accept a female President.
First of all, she won the popular vote, clearly indicating that the country was at least grudgingly willing to elect her. Unfortunately, she did not sufficiently inspire the voters to give her a wide-enough popular margin to overcome the anti-democratic vagaries of the Electoral College.
The voters were willing to vote for a woman for President, but the they were more interested in electing someone different from what had gone before, someone the voters believed would overturn the status quo.
Despite the lack of a Y chromosome, Hillary Clinton is indistinguishable from the white men who have been itching to allow Wall Street to keep playing Russian Roulette with our economy, itching to allow corporations to keep shipping our jobs overseas. Regardless of gender, Hillary Clinton is a card-carrying member of the Old Boy’s Club.
Polling from Election Day shows that Bernie Sanders would have not only have beaten Donald Trump but would have taken his lunch money and left him crying for his mommy. And if Bernie could have won that easily, I have no doubt that Elizabeth Warren would also have defeated Trump handily. Both senators represent the voice traditionally Democratic voters have wanted to hear from their party for years, which is why either of them would have won.
Trump didn’t win because he was a man. He won because he represented more of a change to the status quo than Hillary Clinton. The change he represents is very dangerous to the Republic and also the world, which makes Hillary Clinton’s failure to articulate a compelling argument for her Presidency, her failure to defeat an eminently beatable candidate, all the more damning an indictment against her.