The Democratic Party just can’t let go of that 2016 election loss.
One does not have to look far to find sorrowful liberals still obsessed with the fact that Hillary Clinton failed to break that ultimate glass ceiling. It’s just not fair. She was supposed to sail into victory! Instead, she bumped her head on the glass ceiling and lost to former Democrat, playboy, and reality star, Donald Trump. You have to be one of the worst candidates of all time in order to lose to someone like him. Hillary’s “What Happened” memoir will be released next week, but she needn’t bother. We know what happened.
If there’s anything Hillary is good at, it’s constantly reminding us how terrible she is. And if there’s anything the DNC excels at, it’s looking at a bad decision that failed miserably and saying, “Yeah, guys. Let’s try that again!”
Enter one Democratic strategist who is already desperately trying to make 2020 happen for the Dems.
— The Hill (@thehill) September 3, 2017
No, we’re not laughing with you. We’re laughing at you.
The 2020 hope for the Democratic Party, to unify their fractured and scattered base, and secure the White House for Liberals! and Girls! is either Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand?
Might as well prepare yourself for a second Donald Trump term, then.
One glaring problem with the Democratic Party’s strategy is their insistence on the “future belonging to females.” Believe me, this is heavily due to the fact that their girl Hillary, who had been prepping for November 8, 2016, her entire existence, lost. And it was an embarrassing and unexpected loss at that.
Sure, promote women in your party. Fine, they’re in leadership. Great, they’re making waves among their constituents. Yes, we hear their names often. But you’re going to believe that someone like either Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand (or a dreadful ticket with both women on it), will save your party? Then you’ve learned nothing in the past year. Nothing. At all.
But don’t let me tell you that. I’ll let the author of the piece explain it in his own words, emphasis mine.
As the Democratic party looks toward the 2020 presidential election, there are questions about who will take over the mantle of spokesperson and future leader of the party…Less than a year into President Trump’s chaotic tenure, there are no clear answers to those questions. What is certain, however, is that the future of the Democratic Party appears to be female.
Both Harris and Gillibrand hold no punches and have been criticized for exhibiting the same political aspirations as many of their male counterparts.
Unlike the Clinton campaign, which was unable to drum up the excitement of the Obama campaigns, a new era may be coming to the Democratic Party. Harris and Gillibrand are void of many of the flaws that turned away potential Clinton voters. As relative newbies on the national political scene, neither Harris nor Gillibrand has had the time to accumulate the partisan ire that was often attributed to the former first lady and secretary of State. Neither Harris nor Gillibrand suffers from questions about their age or potential fitness for office. Neither Harris nor Gillibrand has to address unfair questions relating to their husband’s indiscretions or political decisions that they were not elected to make.
What could be more opposite from the status quo than intelligent, hard-working and inspirational women running the country? They are qualified candidates not merely because they are smart, accomplished women showing little girls all over the country that one day we will shatter that last glass ceiling, but also because they represent what makes our country great, something our current president doesn’t come close to doing.
If Democrats have any hope of winning back the White House in 2020, we have to do more than just run a candidate, we must run a movement.
Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand appear equipped to answer these questions. The future of the Democratic Party may be fluid, but if voters put their trust in the hands of either woman, the path to 270 will suddenly become a smoother journey. Even after the heartbreaking loss by Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump last November, the future of the Democratic Party still looks female. Let the race to 2020 begin.
The author, Michael Starr Hopkins, insists that he wants a movement. However, it’s clear that his real goal is putting a liberal female in office. As we’ve seen, political races on such a scale where gender is so heavily relied upon do not work out very well. Pushing a woman for the sake of getting a woman into that office falls quite flat when the time comes for voters to decide. Remember Susan Sarandon? The liberal feminist who loves all the girl power stuff? She was in Bernie Sanders’ camp. There are other examples, too. If liberal females – or females in general – were most concerned about getting someone that looked like them in office, then we’d have President Hillary Clinton right now.
Another laughable idea from Hopkins’ slobbering essay is that neither Harris nor Gillibrand “has had time to accumulate the partisan ire” that Hillary possessed. While neither woman has as much political history as Mrs. Clinton, he is sorely mistaken if he believes their names don’t invoke some kind of response from policial observers. Here at RedState we’ve documented plenty of instances of extreme liberalism from both of these women. They are in no way attractive to even the casual Trump voter who just couldn’t vote for Hillary.
It’s doubtful that either Harris or Gillibrand could do much of anything to unify the crumbled Democratic base. It’s even more of a stretch to believe either (or both) could run a national campaign wherein they unify a country that is already so divided and sail onto victory as the first female president.
As Regina George stated in the movie Mean Girls, don’t push things that have no chance of succeeding.
Gretchen: “That is so ‘fetch’!”
Regina: “Gretchen, stop trying to make ‘fetch’ happen! It’s not going to happen!”
Really. It won’t.