In The News

Academics Try to Prove Hillary Lost Because She Was a Woman..They Didn’t Expect This

Liberals still insist that Hillary lost because she is a woman.  two liberal academics joined forces to prove it.  A professor of economics named Maria Guadalupe and Joe Salvatore, a professor who specializes in something called ethnodrama, decided to restage the debates but with one small difference.  A man played Hillary and a woman played Trump.  To make it more one sided the entire audience were so called academics.


Both Guadalupe and Salvatore were certain their theory would be proven correct and the man would win, meaning Hillary lost because she was a woman.  The actor and actress took the exercise seriously and studied every movement and every word and how it was spoken.

The sponsors of the exercise was positive they knew how it would turn out.  The audience were sure they knew how it would turn out.  The actor and actress were positive they knew how it would turn out, but they were all wrong.


From NYU News:

The two sold-out performances of Her Opponent took place on the night of Saturday, January 28, just a week after President Trump’s inauguration and the ensuing Women’s March on Washington…

Many were shocked to find that they couldn’t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton—or that Brenda King’s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they’d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.

Salvatore did an interview with NYU and told them what he had learned from this experiment:

We heard a lot of “now I understand how this happened”—meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump’s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman—that was a theme. One person said, “I’m just so struck by how precise Trump’s technique is.” Another—a musical theater composer, actually—said that Trump created “hummable lyrics,” while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no “hook” to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate—you know, “I wouldn’t vote for either one.” Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was “really punchable” because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don’t like, but you know is doing good things for you.

The reason why it didn’t turn out the way they expected is quite simple.  They allowed their bias towards Hillary to see every flub she made as a direct hit and they also mistook Trump’s plain language common sense for buffoonery.  This was a wake up call for these academics.

To Top