Here are some thing she’s been in charge of, off the top of my head:
How how many of those do you think she ran competently? Personally, I’d give her credit for #2 and #6.
I’m sure you will also know more white women voted for Trump than for “a woman (shudder)”
Sure, nobody ever said that sexist attitudes are only held by men.
You’re saying more white women voted for Trump because the other candidate was a woman?
I think white women voters, like other voters, had a variety of different reasons for voting as they did. I’m just skeptical about your apparent insinuation that sexism couldn’t have been a significant factor in Clinton’s defeat because white women as a group voted for Trump over Clinton.
That reasoning is faulty, because women as well as men can be influenced by sexist attitudes and make choices for sexist reasons.
You make it tempting for me to say “I rest my case”.
Yeah, I’m not exactly seeing how Clinton qualifies as actually “incompetent” in any of those areas. She certainly hasn’t been consistently successful in all of those areas, but that’s not the same thing.
I think one lesson of the 2016 election is that being more “centrist and reasonable” isn’t nearly as important as conventional wisdom states, at least in terms of winning elections. Clinton didn’t lose because she was too lefty, and Trump was certainly not closer to the center than she was. A more left-wing Democratic nominee probably would have beat Trump. Not because of being more left-wing, but simply by virtue of not being Hillary Clinton.
I agree that they weren’t those things, but I’m pretty sure they were actually perceived that way. I can’t remember exactly, but Trump was seen as either the most moderate Republican or the most moderate candidate period, in a period going back several decades IIRC. I’ll see if I can find the numbers I saw.
I think that’s likely a ‘yes’.
No, it’s the answer I said. If I mean “yes”, I’ll say “yes”.
Whatever the actual reasons for the electoral choices of different demographics among voters (and I agree with tomndebb that it is certainly hard to say exactly how much anti-Clinton sentiment was rooted in sexist prejudice against a female president), you are simply wrong when you try to argue that sexist prejudice couldn’t have been a significant factor because more white women voted for Trump than for Clinton.
You are wrong about that because it’s perfectly possible for women to be influenced by sexist prejudice, just as it is for men.
If you’re still having trouble understanding that point, I’ll try to explain it again. But it is not the same thing as asserting that white women voters were in fact significantly influenced by sexist prejudice. Pointing out that a particular argument against position A happens to be logically flawed is not equivalent to claiming that position A is true.
I’m not an American citizen, but part of my family has been in the USA for decades.
Of course I’m biased, especially since I’ve known Trump for a long time and I disliked him the moment I read two or three stories about the man (somewhere in the early 1990’s I guess).
My opinion is that Trump is not fit for the job and it shows. The more it shows, the more his fans will paint Hilary in unfavorable colors. This is mainly for two reasons: 1) for them to be able to live with the idea of making a bad choice (it seems to soothes them that they had no choice but to pick between bad and worse, and they must make sure Hilary will always remain ‘obviously’ worse); and 2) to build a preemptive discourse that will prevent or counterattack any criticism of Trump.
I know. tomndebb didn’t mention that though, he spoke about “Right Wing” only.
It also denies gender/age demographics which were important among whites - the older the white female voter, the more likely they voted Trump. It’s as if 50 years of feminism went out the window.
If acting entitled was enough to piss of Republicans they’d have strung Donald Trump up by his ears.
Possibly they think she called them “deplorables” who are “irredeemable”.
One source of hatred is the huge payments she receives for giving speeches. I don’t want to start rumors but I’ll bet many of the Dopers who complain about those speeches would accept speech offers for even a paltry $100,000, let alone the price she gets. 
Oh? Hatred of Hillary is highly irrational. What’s your go-to example for the Tu quoque here? I’m not asking for one Yahoo blogger who said something mean about Kasich; I’m looking for something comparable to Hillary hatred: Millions of haters, with the hatred mostly derived from lies and propaganda.
I’ve never had the pleasure of meeting Hillary, but all I’ve read, from interviewers and in non-partisan bios, shows her to be a warm and wholesome human being dedicated to causes like children and women’s rights. Perhaps she is too sincere to develop a “politician’s charisma.”
These are all policy issues; and many Democrats side with her on these issues. (Would I be correct to guess you seldom vote (D) for national office? 
)
@ Bone — would you say that your disapproval of Clinton’s stance on several policy issues leads you to feel “hatred” or “venom” for her?
This is something I’ve noticed, although I tend to see the Hillary Hate from the left, not the right. My Facebook feed is currently clogged up by leftists who loathe Clinton for destroying the Democratic party, and leftists who loathe Sanders for destroying the Democratic party. Fraud! Huckster! Warmonger! Demagogue! The mudslinging is fast and furious and makes me ill.
So here’s my take on this battle: which may be off-topic but if it is it’s only slightly so.
Between Clinton and Sanders, she’s the more deceitful of the two, and that’s not in Sanders’s favor.
She’s a manager, in the best possible way. He’s a visionary, for better and worse. When she lies, she does so about herself (under fire in Serbia, wiping servers like with a cloth, etc.); on policy issues she’s scrupulously correct. Sanders, I suspect, doesn’t lie, even though he’s not always on-point on policy; when people disagree with him on policy, he impatiently and insultingly hand-waves away their concerns.
I voted for Sanders in the primary, because I think the Democratic party’s vision is anemic and needs a serious booster shot. His continued push for visionary issues is vital to the long-term health of the party and nation, IMO. But if I’m talking about which one would be a better president? I’d gotta go with Clinton. She’s subtler and more in tune with facts than Sanders is. More timid, more middle of the road, sure; but she’d get shit done in a way that Sanders wouldn’t.
The venom from the left against Clinton is primarily that she disparages visions, that she wants an extremely middle-of-the-road party. I think that’s a fair criticism of her, but the hatred for her on the left is out of control.
I would try to claim that politicians have to be likable but I can’t with the orange one in office. But typically, politicians that are not likable have to settle for pulling strings instead like Dick Cheney or Boss Tweed.
But the OP was about why people use such ugly extreme language to talk about Mrs. Clinton. The answer is that people currently use ugly and extreme language to talk about anything they don’t like, and the current President has given that behavior a seal of approval. Personally I don’t know how a few hippies shouting “fuck” have turned the country into a bunch of potty-mouthed insulters, but here we are. And I for one (as a former “fuck” shouter) am tired of it. However, as I am now old and ignored, there’s not a lot I can do about it. Anyone have an idea how to get people to stop talking nasty about their opponents?
It sometimes seems as if the Dems hate Hillary even more than the conservatives. Which is understandable after all as she lost them the Presidency, to Donald Trump of all people. And what is worse she has the effrontery to act as if it wasn’t her fault!