@revelette1,
You are among the friends of glitterbag who repeatedly pointed out HRC won the popular vote so how exactly did the
gender factor materially hurt her?
She could have increased her margin of victory in all the states she won by 50% and she would have won the popular vote in an even more lopsided fashion, but she still would have lost the election.
Too many woman-haters in Wisconsin?
She got a lot of votes simply because she is a woman, offsetting the votes cast for Trump solely because she is a woman.
BTW - You have the concept of PC wrong although, given the term as it reads, it's understandable. Bringing up the
gender factor is perfectly PC. Something is
politically incorrect when it cuts against the grain of progressive social dogma. No one calls politically incorrect a claim that the GOP is a bunch of old, white privileged fat cats, but it would be
politically incorrect to say that HRC lost the election because she was a tired old woman.
For good or bad, the term only has relevance in connection with progressive dogma, and you can tell when something is
politically incorrect by how widely and vociferously it is criticized.
Since blaming misogyny for the lack of women's success (in general or particular) is standard fare that isn't greeted by a backlash from Salon, MSNBC, college campuses, social media in general and other numerous sources, it is
politically correct, which is to say acceptable to most progressives. In the case of Clinton, its hogwash but perfectly PC.
