If Clinton Was Male She Would Win In A Landslide


If Hillary Clinton was a man there would be no question as to who the next US president would be. This individual is prepared, experienced and fiercely able to hold her own in the face of a screaming lunatic for 90 minutes straight.

Once you bring in the ‘she’ pronoun a mass of doubts floods the spotlight, alongside many more feeble attempts to undermine her ability to lead the country. The sad reality is that although she is arguably more qualified than anyone else has ever been to lead of the US, she has to indulge the idiocy of a man who has no idea what he is talking about and fight a close election against him. Why is this? We still live in a society where being female limits and squanders the capability and achievements of women.

The apparent worthy competitor, ‘Donald Trump’, is in my view a horrible human being for numerous reasons, but I’m going to focus on the sexist aspect of his disgusting personality. He has been caught on record time and time again making insanely disrespectful and sexists remarks, many of which target Clinton. His Twitter account retweeting the remark: ‘if Hilary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she could satisfy America’ is one such example.

During the first debate, Trump was challenged on his previous remark that ‘Clinton doesn’t have a presidential look’. He avoided the bait, and instead stated his belief that Clinton lacks the ‘stamina’ of a good president – whatever that means. Ironically, she didn’t take a sip of water all night, yet stayed perfectly literate and well humoured; compared to Trump’s persistent and vicious interruptions (over 50 times to be precise) and intense screaming matches with himself. This wasn’t even the most ironic remark Trump made last night – a personal highlight was him shouting aggressively how his greatest asset to being US president was his temperament. It was so unbelievable that the entire live audience just couldn’t help but burst out laughing.

The fact of the matter is, the only thing that Trump has got that is a real asset to his presidential campaign that Hillary doesn’t, is his sex. So despite Hillary’s future plans, education, experience etc. Trump’s gender is somehow enough to make him an equal candidate.

Credit has to be given to Clinton for last night’s debate. She was a worthy winner, and handled the chaotic situation and his constant personal attacks with dignity. She also knew exactly when to pipe up with relevant criticism to let Trump’s angry rants dig his own grave. Every area of concern raised in the debate was fully addressed by Clinton with a set plan for resolution and improvements

Trump, on the other hand, did not offer a solution to any of the Issues facing the US. He focused entirely on the past and criticised all political decisions of the last 30 years, even the ones he’s on record as agreeing with (cough *Iraq War* cough). He blamed anything and everything that he could on Clinton, China or of course, the Mexicans. Nor did we find out any further information about his big master plan to ‘make America great again’. Sure, America could just take a gamble and trust he’s definitely got one…

Quite amazingly, after all that, people have still managed to find a way to tear Hillary down. Many reports following the debate complained that Hillary came across as ‘too prepared’. As if having a presidential candidate who is prepared to discuss the big national issues is such a terrible quality to possess… But, as she so perfectly responded to one of Trump’s pathetic attack on stage last night, ‘Do you know what else I prepared for – I prepared to be President.’.

I’m not going to even dignify Fox News host Brit Hume’s tweet that Clinton was ‘not necessarily attractive’ with an explanation as to why that is all kinds of bad. Yet again, it’s just another solid example of the different lens that women are viewed through compared to men, and how this hinders them from being in a position of power – like I don’t know, being president.

Anyone who denies there is still massive gender inequality in the world needs to properly consider the fact that an arguably racist, sexist, seedy, tax-evading, WW3 promoting businessman is seriously being considered as a worthy competitor for the US presidential position – and all because the alternative happens to be a woman.

More articles in US Presidential Election 2016
  1. The Unthinkable Happened – What Will a Trump Presidency Mean for You?
  2. Interference in the US Election: Where Do We Draw the Line?
  3. US Presidential Election 2016: Who is the Lesser of Two Evils?
  4. The US Electoral College: An Explainer
  5. US Presidential Election 2016: A Close Call?
  6. Hofstra University Presidential Debate – Live Blog
  7. A Look Across The Pond: Issue 4
  8. If Clinton Was Male She Would Win In A Landslide
  9. Washington University Presidential Debate – Live Blog
  10. University Of Nevada Presidential Debate – Live Blog
  11. US Presidential Debate Sketch: What Would George Think?
  12. Trump Announces His ‘Contract With The American Voter’
  13. People Shouldn’t Vote For Hillary Because Of Gender
  14. Trump, Fear and Trembling
  15. Five Reasons Not To Worry (Too) Much About Trump
  16. US Presidential Election 2016: Live Blog

Former English Student | Travel Editor 2016-17 |Current MSc. International Politics | Editor at Wessex Scene for 2017-18.

Discussion3 Comments

  1. avatar

    I think you’re definitely right to point out that sexist views have been prominent in this unusually nasty and vicious election. However, I think it’s a bit of stretch to say that Hillary Clinton would win in a landslide if she were male. While she is certainly more qualified than Donald Trump and has much clearer policy ideas, her lack of honesty and the fact that she is seen by many American voters as representing the hated ‘political establishment’, have led to her lacklustre approval ratings. This sense of Clinton, senator for New York from 2001 to 2009, being an insider in a system that most Americans think has failed (just 18% approve of the job Congress is doing) also means that Trump’s outsider status is attractive, even if many voters are offended, appalled or disgusted by many of the things he says.
    All in all, I believe that this election is set to be very close, something suggested by both pundits and polls, and that sexism plays less of role in people’s dislike of Clinton than her policies and personality- the very same things that have led many to reject Trump.

  2. avatar

    I totally agree with you Niall. Donald Trump is a horrible sexist but on the most part Clinton is hated for her history and policies. She represents the Democrat establishment who fixed their primary against Bernie Sanders who represents the views of many progressives and young people. She is centre-right and people want someone more left. She wont bring any change-no radical reform to health care, drug laws, banks or foreign policy. She barely even touches the issue of corporate money in politics. She has flip flopped so many times on gun issues, gay marriage and problems of minorities. People cant really forget the super predators comment. She also voted for the Iraq War (obviously being a prominent Democrat this helped garner it support) and she is a large part of the mess in Libya in her time as secretary of State. Lets not forget she is also in the pocket of Wall Street.

    She has so much baggage I doubt people who would support her idieolloigcally would change if she was a man. Sexism is prvelant in Trump and his supporters criticism and attitude towards her. But she wouldn’t be doing that much better if she was a man simply because she is a horrible candidate. More qualified and more human than Trump yes, but not great. A vote for her is a vote for the establishment, perpetual war, and dominance of corporations in America.

  3. avatar

    I’m not sure that I agree with you that Clinton is centre-right; she’s certainly less radical than Bernie Sanders is, but her policies are, in my view, squarely centre-left. I also don’t agree that the primaries were fixed against Bernie Sanders, if anything the system was favourable towards him- he only won one closed primary (Oregon), where only registered Democrats could vote, and three semi-closed primaries (New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Rhode Island). The large number of caucuses, where enthusiasm makes a big difference, was a boost to his campaign. This might seem academic, but it shows that the primaries weren’t rigged against Sanders. Moreover, the fact that Clinton won more votes than Obama in the 2008 primaries, but failed to become the nominee shows that ‘the establishment’ within the Democratic Party doesn’t have the sinister power that some suggest.

    You’re certainly right that she is a flawed candidate and has a lot of baggage on issues such as Iraq, but it’s worth pointing out that 29 out of 50 Democrat senators supported the war, including big names such as Joe Biden and Harry Reid. My general feeling, however, is that most of the problems associated with her as a candidate come from personal issues such as her e-mail scandal. Not being left-wing enough, however, is not a problem. The Democratic Party is a liberal, progressive party, but it is not a socialist party and Americans, on the whole, don’t believe in socialism.

Leave A Reply