Exposing Hillary So She Won't Get Elected

Leftists Understand Now: What If Trump And Clinton Switched Genders?

A leftist audience was shocked when a reenactment of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump “swapping genders” was performed.

They noted that the traits they found unappealing in Donald Trump were appealing in a female candidate and the characteristics they liked about Hillary Clinton disappeared when she was a male candidate.

The experiment was done at NYU, when two professors who watched the second debate wondered about male and female communication styles. What if the genders were switched, NYU reports. How would the audience’s perceptions change?

Professor Maria Guadalupe pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, gesticulations, body language and tone verbatim, while a male actor took on Hillary’s role in much the same way. Guadalupe reached out to Professor Joe Salvatore and together they developed Her Opponent. And it is rather fascinating. Here is a clip:

Salvatore says he and Guadalupe began the project assuming that the gender inversion would confirm what they’d each suspected watching the real-life debates: that Trump’s aggression—his tendency to interrupt and attack—would never be tolerated in a woman, and that Clinton’s competence and preparedness would seem even more convincing coming from a man.

But the lessons about gender that emerged in rehearsal was much less tidy.

Salvatore said the audience’s “liberal assumptions” were wrong:

“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 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.”

The two performances were sold out. Here’s how a New York Times reporter characterized it:

The atmosphere among the standing-room-only crowd, which appeared mostly drawn from academic circles, was convivial, but also a little anxious. Most of the people there had watched the debates assuming that Ms. Clinton couldn’t lose. This time they watched trying to figure out how Mr. Trump could have won.”

These leftists finally got it. Here’s how Professor Salvatore put it:

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.