Philosophy Explorer wrote:prothero wrote:Well we all got that one wrong. Hilary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate and a poor campaigner. Her loss was not due to sexism. In fact women made gains in the 2016 election and the Senate now has 21 female members (hopefully enough to influence legislature about health care, child care and other women's issues and rights). There is also evidence to indicate when women choose to run for elected public office they stand an equal to better chance of being elected.
I wouldn't say Hillary was a poor campaigner because she did win the popular vote.
PhilX
But as one can easily discern it is not about the popular vote, she never campaigned in Wisconsin for instance. She only won the popular vote because her opponent was so unpopular; in fact we have never had two candidates from the major parties with such high unfavorable and nu-likability ratings, had anyone other than Donald Trump been the opposition she likely would have lost by a wide margin.
This campaign should illustrate the profound flaws of the primary system (excluding independents and moderates), of voter suppression in individual states (through voter ID, early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, voting days, placement and staffing of voter precincts and other subtle and sometimes not so subtle methods). We need open primaries and easier more universal voting methods and procedures. The problem is not voter fraud but voter apathy and lack of voter participation. There is a frustrating amount of denial of facts, and the substitution of opinion for reason in this country even the media which now more closely resembles people magazine or entertainment weekly than Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow.