The gender of the Democratic candidate was irrelevant.

And I don't think you can separate sexism from how people processed that silly story. George W. Bush had a private email server inside the Bush White House. A male candidate would not have been judged so harshly over this sorry excuse for a scandal.

Then again, had she not been running for president there never would have been a story, let alone an FBI investigation. That inquiry wasn't bad luck in terms of timing. It was specifically designed for the presidential election in order to help the GOP win.

Let's never forget the fact that Hillary won by over 3 MILLION votes. It's that damned antiquated electoral college (which was implemented to appease slave states) which did us in. Comey gave tRump just barely enough swing state votes to swing the electoral college.

He turned that election upside down. Repeatedly.

be our next president. But in an ultra-close election, sexism can be a deciding factor. But that isn't stopping me from supporting Elizabeth. What I don't like is candidates using the reality of sexism to boost their electability argument. No. No. No.

Hillary won the popular vote by a narrow margin (instead of a much wider one) because a lot of voters weren't ready for a female president right after an African-American one. Too much of a radical concept for them. Meanwhile, here was (basically) a male WASP who could "get things back to normal."

Which, to me, makes all these (alleged) voters both racist and mysoginistic in addition to ignorant.

by those who think their candidate will benefit.

I accept Warren’s statement and her matter of fact outlook. She probably doesn’t think the comment was meant to be insulting.