Anyone who voted for Donald Trump doesn’t need to be told how revolting Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign and personality were during the election cycle.
With her bristly personality, robot like delivery, screaming rants, lying about her health problems, callous demeanor, absence of morality, lack of responsibility and obvious sense of entitlement, she doesn’t appeal to anyone who’s not a dyed-in-the-wool leftist.
The Left doesn’t get this, naturally, as they are often blind to social cues and how others see behavior liberals consider normal as being extreme and weird.
For your average liberal, people who voted against Hillary did so because she’s a woman, not because of her lengthy record of lying, cheating and gaming the system to her own advantage.
So when two New York University professors conducted an experiment called the “Her Opponent Project” to discern how people’s reactions to Hillary would have differed if she were a man, the results blew liberal preconceptions completely out of the water.
The idea was simple: Re-create a portion of the presidential debates, putting Hillary’s exact words into the mouth of a man and putting Donald Trump’s exact words into the mouth of a woman.
To isolate the gender factor as much as possible, the two actors hired even went so far as to copy each candidate’s posture, movements and inflections.
The professors hoped to show that Trump’s aggressive manner would not have been acceptable to viewers coming from a woman, while Hillary’s presentation would have won her fans if she were a man.
Upon showing the resulting video to audiences, the results were eye-opening. The male version of Hillary came across as an even bigger pompous jackass, while the female Trump won over viewers with her feistiness and courage.
“We both thought that the inversion would confirm our liberal assumption—that no one would have accepted Trump’s behavior from a woman, and that the male Clinton would seem like the much stronger candidate,” said Professor Joe Salvatore. “But we kept checking in with each other and realized that this disruption—a major change in perception—was happening. I had an unsettled feeling the whole way through.”
One female audience member put it very succinctly, saying that the male Hillary was “very punchable.”
Another audience member said, “When she [the female Trump] was attacking, I had so much respect for her and her level of confidence.”
You could probably write a lengthy psychoanalytical paper on the results of this experiment, but one thing that seems obvious is that it confirms something many conservatives have pointed out over the years: Liberals vote their agenda, regardless of the real world circumstances.
The simple facts of the recent election are that Hillary was an intolerable, and intolerant, demagogue, elitist and probable criminal, while Trump was bold, daring, innovative and relatable.
Liberals only voted for Hillary because she was a woman and a Democrat, and they only hate Trump because he’s a conservative man.
I wonder, if anyone was brave enough to try it, if a similar experiment involving race would finally show liberals that, yes, it really was Obama’s policies that people hated.
Here’s video of the rehearsal: