Democratic Strategist Uses Complete Lack of Logic to Claim Identity Politics Wins Elections
In one of the most laughably tone deaf articles of all time, the President of the women’s group, EMILY’s List, Stephanie Schriock, who apparently has worked as a campaign manager, doesn’t think the Democratic Party is focusing on courting women voters enough. She claims it would be an awful mistake if they simultaneously tried to get working class voters in red states (as well as women), and other demographics that are important to win elections, because then women might feel alienated by the party.
Schriock says the main focus needs to be on women voters, because they’re so affected by Republican policies (which they are), and since there are so many women running for office now, following Trump’s election win, we need to support them and show our appreciation for how much they are speaking out. Also, it wouldn’t be a good idea to try and get coal miners in West Virginia and Kentucky, because those people are already going to support Trump, anyway, and the party can’t risk neglecting women voters.
This is the argument being made in this piece. So I have to ask Ms. Schriock, seeing as how she has worked on campaigns in the past: how exactly does a party win elections when they’re appealing to a voting bloc that is already on their side, and ignore other demographics? If Schriock wants to make the argument that Hillary Clinton lost the white female vote in the election, and that it contributed to her loss to Trump, she would be wrong, but it’s still a point of emphasis that should have been corrected.
Hillary Clinton lost white female voters, because she played the identity politics game, and tried to divide the two genders by talking about how anybody who supports a sexist scumbag, like Trump, they’re “deplorables,” who might also be racist. Of course, that’s not the exact argument she made, but because Hillary is a terrible communicator, and says stupid shit in an effort to seem genuine, people just interpreted it differently, and she caused herself to become even more unlikeable to white women. She just thought all women would hate him for being sexist, and kept nailing that same point over and over.
Meanwhile, Hillary completely ignored the rust belt, where factory workers were getting laid off and industrial companies were shipping their jobs overseas, so what did she do? Nothing, she kept calling Trump a sexist, and told women she’s going to be there for them, since he won’t, even though majority of ALL women already supported her. Polls during and after the election proved this. So she did absolutely nothing to focus on the voters that she needed, and neglected states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, then she ends up losing to an incompetent buffoon.
And what does the President of one of the leading women’s groups say? “You’re not on the side of women enough. Who cares about workers… Women love you!” I’m sorry, but that advice from Schriock is exactly what lost the election. Women voters are important, but you don’t win elections with divide and conquer strategies. You need to appeal to a vast array of people, especially those whom you may not have locked up yet. You had majority of women, so you’re good there. But nope, Hillary and her team didn’t want to listen, and they smeared Bernie Sanders for pointing out these mistakes, yet, they still go ahead and blame him for her losing.
Then Hillary wonders why she lost… maybe, just maybe, people like Stephanie Schriock giving her brilliant advice about ignoring certain voters to attract other ones, which she already had, did the trick?
Nope, the sexist “Bernie bros” did it.