Okay, this is just weirdo a doodle flapjacks time. I can think of lots of ways of thinking about the 2016 campaign, especially in terms of globalism vs nationalism (or diversity vs solidarity) or policy vs celebrity or probably a few others. It would never occur to me in a million years to think of it as “a referendum on how this nation values women” because what does that even mean? The only thing I can imagine is that by not electing Clinton the country was giving a big fat ole thumbs down to valuing women? Hoooow?
If there was a single defining issue in the campaign is was large scale immigration. Trump was the only candidate in years who campaigned on limiting immigration and it got him into the Oval Office.
I supported Clinton in 2008 but by 2016 she was no longer a really viable candidate for lots of reasons including her health and general lack of charisma (honestly I think a dead catfish could engender more enthusiasm than she did).
I’m really excited by one of these candidates!
I’m also wondering how the author of the post squares the Hillary worship with Clinton’s record of enabling her husband’s sexual… excesses (I don’t necessarily believe every allegation out there but he clearly has a record of shitting where he eats as they say). I’m sure there’s an answer coming there eventually, the level of mental gymnastics needed to turn HRC into a political ideal is such that justifying her enabling of her husband’s behavior should be childs play.