A lot of left-of-center friends of mine are on Facebook complaining that racism and sexism cost Hillary Clinton the election. I'll have more to say about that general complaint elsewhere, soon. But in the meantime, it's worth mentioning, in response to the "sexism" accusation, that in at least two states with a total of 26 electoral votes, Michigan and Wisconsin, Hillary Clinton's margin of defeat appears to have been smaller than the number of votes won by Jill Stein, a woman who ran for president as the nominee of the hard left Green Party.
Results are still unofficial, but as of this writing, Mr. Trump leads Mrs. Clinton in Michigan by about 12,000 votes. Jill Stein won about 50,000 votes in the state. If the Stein voters had simply voted for Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton would have won the state.
Similarly, in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump's margin of victory over Mrs. Clinton is about 27,000 votes. Jill Stein won about 31,000 votes in the state. If the Stein voters had simply voted for Mrs. Clinton, Clinton would have won the state.
If these Stein voters were "sexist," they were nonetheless able to overcome their sexism and vote for a woman candidate — just not for Hillary Clinton. It seems unlikely that sexism was their primary motivation for choosing to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton.
Switching the electoral votes of Michigan and Wisconsin into the Clinton column from the Trump column wouldn't be enough to change the overall outcome of the election, at least according to the math I did. But it's certainly also possible that a goodly number of voters who chose to just stay home shared the Stein voter ideological outlook and thought that Mrs. Clinton was too much of a centrist to get their vote. For whatever reason, though, the post-election blame-casting of the Clinton camp doesn't seem to be directed at far-left fantasists.