By Dave Andrusko
Earlier today we posted “Five things to know before tonight’s GOP debate.” I hope you read it, pass it along to your pro-life friends, and watch the debate.
But there’s also lots going on on the Democratic side, including still more evidence pro-abortion Hillary Clinton may have an awfully difficult time putting the band back together–the coalition that elected Barak Obama.
Clinton couldn’t have asked for a more friendly pollster than Greenberg Quinlan Rosner — Greenberg is a “veteran Democratic pollster,” as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent put it so delicately — or a more supportive group asking for the poll than Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund.
But the results were not friendly for Clinton who is mired in a host of problems, including the now famous use of a private email server while serving as Secretary of State.
The new poll, Sargent writes,
shows that members of the Rising American Electorate — minorities, millennials, and single women — are significantly less tuned in to next year’s election than GOP-aligned voter groups are.
Hmmm. Consider that in light of the following comment:
“Unmarried women are a key dynamic in American politics,” Page Gardner, the president of Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, tells me [Sargent]. “It’s clear that the party or candidate who can increase turnout of unmarried women and the other segments of the Rising American Electorate will be well-positioned for victory in 2016.”
Three things about that.
#1. As we’ve noted many times, Clinton’s involvement as a national public figure goes back to 1992. As one millennial told a reporter of Clinton, she’s your mother’s candidate. Younger women have a difficult time relating to Clinton.
#2. Going back to Sargent’s story on the poll
Unmarried women, minorities, and particularly millennials are less interested in next year’s voting than seniors, conservatives, and white non-college men are. Non-college women — a group the Clinton camp is reportedly eyeing as a way to expand on the Obama coalition — are also less interested.
Specifically, 71 percent of seniors said they were “extremely interested” in the presidential election; 70 percent of conservatives and 70 percent of Republicans said the same. In contrast, just 65 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of minorities, 60 percent of unmarried women and 42 percent of millennials said they were “extremely interested.”
Which helps to explain “Clinton making gender a focus of her presidential bid,” a story that also ran in yesterday’s Washington Post.
What exactly do Anne Gearan and John Wagner mean by a “focus” on “gender”?
What we wrote about last week. The absolutely made-up-out-of-whole cloth charge that Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders had somehow demonstrated sexism in their first debate.
It was such a painfully, transparently ugly and unfounded charge that you would think Clinton’s camp might rethink it. Not a chance, according to Gearan’s and Wagner’s story. They are doubling down.
Now Clinton’s allies are calling it “tone-deaf sexism.” In other words, Sanders is not only mired in sexism, he’s so out of it he is oblivious to it.
You could easily construe the entirety of Gearan’s and Wagner’s 1,467-word-long article as an in-kind contribution to the Clinton campaign. In fact, it would be impossible to interpret it any other way.
Moral of the story? No matter what you say, or don’t say, the Clinton machine will feed it into its propaganda machine and churn out ‘evidence’ of sexism.
Maybe that’s why younger feminists find Clinton so tiresome.