How much of this is related to hearing Clinton’s or Trump’s words coming out of someone else’s mouth, regardless of gender? That question also needs answering before we assign too much weight to the swapped genders. As others have said, they are both famous people with extremely well-known personas. It may be that we are simply poor critical thinkers when it comes to favoring substance over surface distractions like looks, personality, or delivery.

Wow. So all the sexism, racism, and abuse of his employees is admirable to you? What about his many bankruptcies, and his outsourcing?

It also assumes that no one knew who Hillary Clinton was before the election, no? The way she behaves is also nothing new. She has a long history of being abusive to others (folks like the Secret Service): it’s how she acts towards people and the constant lying, narcissism and paranoid crap (“Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”) that I can’t stand.

Basically, neither candidate was perfect, characteristics attributed to one are easily attributed to the other (plenty of documentation can be found to support both sides).

Sorry meant this to be for Dee below

The appearance of doing things is there.

I don’t think the point was to suss out which was the better candidate. However since it’s called Her Opponent, and because the woman behind this thought it would show Hillary had been treated unfairly due to her gender, I think it was designed to showcase Hillary as the better candidate. Everyone was shocked when that wasn’t the case.

Of course you can’t look at this in a vacuum, but I’d like to see a study done with the same concept, except using a business meeting with unknown participants instead of famous politicians.