Elections 2016: What if?
Listen to this articleI am amazed at the level of support both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have despite both possessing so many negatives. It is clear men connect with Donald and women with Hillary. However, what if their genders were reversed? Would they still be the presumptive nominees?
Hillary and her supporters can deny this all they want, but Trump is right to a certain extent when he claims Hillary would be nothing if she did not play the gender card. She has desired nothing more than wanting to be the first American female elected president and realized early in her career females out number males as potential voters. However, her husband did the same in many ways. But when you compare Hillary to Bill, if she were a male she would still have some serious problems to over come to secure the female vote she depends on.
First, she is unlikable, not because of her gender, but because of her personality. She lacks the warmth and salesmanship her husband possessed in politics. While Bill could sell shit to a fly, Hillary has trouble selling herself to anyone who lacks big money. We tend to forget this is a very important part in getting elected and remaining in office. If the public does not like you then you have your work cut out. If you do not believe me, ask yourself, would Richard Nixon have survived Monica Lewinsky and would Bill Clinton been forced to resign over Watergate?
Hillary is also a blatant panderer. She has a long history of flip-flopping on issues based on the whims of the voting public. Worse, she tends to deny it and blames the media or conservatives for bringing up her past stances. However, all you have to do is look at her stance on the coal industry and her claim she “misspoke” when she clearly stated she intends to shut down the coal industry. How is it a politician is able to get this far in a presidential race when they are continually claiming their words are taken out of context or she misspoke? It’s almost as if Hillary forgets there is an internet that captures and holds on to ALL a candidate says.
Hillary, if she was a male, would easily be seen as part of the problem and not the solution. She is the establishment and just because she has a vagina does not change this. Clinton has been a major player in national politics since 1992. While her female support refers to this as experience, younger voters and her long time detractors see this as being imbedded with the wealthiest and most powerful forces that drive this nation. It’s time for a new driver, something she has relied on for her own needs the last two decades.
If you are sick of war, Hillary is not the answer. She is as big a hawk as any male and has no problem with military intervention. She understands the military juggernaut that sucks up half our tax dollars and has no intention of turning her back on it if she becomes president. Is this what women, a group of voters that tend to oppose war more than men, really seek from their first female president? If Hillary were a man, would the female block poke holes in her candidacy based on her past support of our military actions? My guess is they would and we would be seeing more middle aged women supporting Bernie as their choice from the left.
But what about Donald? What if he was a woman? Do you think his male supporters would stand by a conservative candidate on a third marriage or would a Mrs. Trump be labeled a whore by the right wing? And how about his flip-flopping? How many misogynists would refer to this as female indecisiveness?
Just look at the pounding Carly Fiorina, a conservative outsider with far more clear and concrete ideas than Trump could ever think up in a lifetime, took during her candidacy? Women railed against her anti-abortion stance. How would they react to a candidate who says a woman should be arrested if she gets an abortion? How would male voters react to a wealthy business tycoon with four bankruptcies, a hoax of a university going under and leaving students high and dry, or shamelessly self promoting herself every chance she got? Forget Kanye the candidate, think of an older Kim Kardashian as a conservative outsider leading a political revolution.
A female Trump would be the candidate “with a face like that” and conservatives would laugh endlessly at all the memes they post on social networks. Would Mrs. Trump be taken seriously by white males when she says she will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? How about when she shares her ideas on nuclear weapons and their use? Think of the reaction when she tells us she loves Hispanics while drooling over a taco bowl in her high rise office. The largely white male support Trump enjoys today would evaporate if he was a she.
So perhaps, instead of looking at Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as our only real candidates for our next president, perhaps we should look at them in a different light and begin considering other alternatives who might actually be more representative of a deserving and serious leader.
Both Hillary and Donald supporters, and detractors for that matter, would be wise to consider someone like Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, as someone who can bridge the best of what Clinton and Trump offer while leaving behind the political nonsense both will bring to the Oval Office if elected in November.
Jim is a life long resident of California and retired school teacher with 30 years in public education. Jim earned his BA in History from CSU Chico in 1981 and his MA in Education from Azusa Pacific University in 1994. He is also the author of Teaching The Teacher: Lessons Learned From Teaching. Jim considers himself an equal opportunity pain in the ass to any political party, group, or individual who looks to profit off of hypocrisy. When he is not pointing out the conflicting words and actions of our leaders, the NFL commissioner, or humans in general, he can be found riding his bike for hours on end while pondering his next article. Jim recently moved to Camarillo, CA after being convinced to join the witness protection program.
