| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
The Dark Side of Hillary Clinton’s Electoral Rationalizations (Identity politics is for the dim)
Identity politics, such as in vogue right now with the old guard in the Democratic Party, is for the dim. Sorry. It’s not smart or “progressive.”
(From The National Review)
Yet Hillary knows, Kristof knows, and everyone who has the slightest shred of intellectual integrity knows that if, say, Nikki Haley had been at the top of the ticket, she would have won the majority of white women also. She would have won the majority of white men. The alleged racist misogynists would have turned out in force for a woman of color. How do we know this? Well, they certainly did in South Carolina, a state that’s hardly considered a bastion of progressive gender politics.
Here’s a thought. It’s revolutionary, I know, but hang with me for a moment. In the United States of America, the (R) or (D) next to a name matters far, far more to the electoral outcome in any given race than does the (M) or (F) of the candidates’ sex. Let’s go even further (again, I’m going crazy here, so be patient), and even say that the (R) or (D) matters more than the (B) or (W) of the candidates’ race. If Ben Carson or Tim Scott had been the nominee, wouldn’t he have won a majority of the white vote and lost a majority of the black vote?
http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/
