‘Raging Moderates’ host says Hillary needed ‘a p*nis and balls’ to win — America gets blamed again

BS BULLETIN:

Scott Galloway argued that Hillary Clinton would have become president if she were a man.
During a live Raging Moderates discussion, he described her defeat as evidence of American sexism.
He made a similar argument to Bill Maher in August — and even Maher offered other reasons for Clinton’s loss.

Nearly a decade after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, Scott Galloway is still working on the explanation. His latest version comes with an anatomy lesson.

During a live Raging Moderates discussion with Jessica Tarlov, Galloway held up Clinton as evidence of a sexist nation and used a crude reference to male genitalia to argue that a male Clinton would have become president. “Tell me, if Hillary Clinton had a penis and balls she wouldn’t be President Clinton,” he said.

He then acknowledged: “I mean, I’m totally playing to the crowd now.”

Well, give the professor credit for identifying his audience.

The comment came during a broader discussion about women’s economic independence, happiness and opportunities. Galloway then shifted to Clinton, treating her defeat as an illustration of his argument about sexism. That is his interpretation of the election, rather than proof that voters rejected her solely because she was a woman.

It is familiar territory for Galloway. On Bill Maher’s Club Random in August, he said he could see no explanation for Clinton losing to Donald Trump other than sexism. He also predicted Gavin Newsom would become president, arguing that appearance, sex and race shape America’s political choices.

Maher, who described himself as a Clinton fan, nevertheless pushed back: “But I also see why she lost, why she rubs people the wrong way.” He pointed to her messaging in coal country and subsequent backtracking as examples of campaign problems.

The election itself supplies an inconvenient complication for sweeping claims about voters refusing to support a woman: Clinton received approximately 65.9 million votes, compared with Trump’s approximately 63 million. Trump won the presidency through the Electoral College, including victories in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Those results do not settle every argument about sexism. They do establish that millions of Americans voted for Clinton — and that winning the presidency required winning the right states.

MY QUICK TAKE:

Folks, this is the kind of analysis that makes losing campaigns feel better and teaches them absolutely nothing.

Maybe voters objected to the candidate. Maybe they preferred Trump’s message. Maybe they wanted somebody who sounded interested in their problems instead of somebody whose supporters keep diagnosing what is wrong with them.

But no — we’re back to America needing a lecture.

Hillary received nearly 66 million votes. The country did not collectively refuse to vote for a woman. She lost the contest that determines who becomes president.

And reducing her defeat to anatomy is an awfully peculiar way to defend a woman’s political accomplishments. It dismisses the campaign, the choices and the voters in one convenient sentence.

Even Bill Maher could see there were other explanations. When Maher is supplying the reality check, perhaps the professor should take notes.