Kirsten Gillibrand finishes her empty costume, fake feminist presidential campaign


Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York ended her presidential campaign on Wednesday. His brief tenure on the national campaign scene was marked by a number of abyssal polls and poor performances in debates. Although Gillibrand was one of the few female candidates in an overcrowded group of men, she lacked star power and had no real electoral base.

Its failure is likely to be a surprise: Democrats have long called for more women to hold elected positions. Yet Gillibrand's campaign reminds us that the physical characteristics of a woman do not automatically make her more or less fit to hold a job, and that any other conclusion would only awaken sexism, which masquerades as progress.

Before leaving, Gillibrand's RealClearPolitics average of polls was only 0.1%, barely a jolt on the screen. But that's all she deserved because her campaign was nothing more than identity politics that focused largely on feminism. In particular, she expressed strong and consistent support for the right to abortion.

In short, the Gillibrand 2020 campaign was an empty pantsuit. On paper, a woman senator on the left should have done better, is not it? But even Washington Post writer Monica Hesse it is noted Gillibrand's almost singular attention to women's issues:

During the two official debates she took part in, Gillibrand promised to prioritize women so often that an ordinary woman looking from her living room could feel shy at such attention, overwhelmed by the audacity of the support from Gillibrand.

She has developed a platform based on the groundbreaking idea that "women's issues," which affect half of Americans, are not a marginal note of our culture. these are American problems.

The candidate's strategy clearly went against him.

It's hard to say exactly why other presidential candidates at the 2020 race, such as Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, are better off than Gillibrand. It may be because voters perceive them as having more comprehensive campaign platforms that do not seem as gender-specific. It may be because they enjoy better name recognition. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that just looking for a higher position does not mean that a woman will be rewarded with the support of her female voters. And unsurprisingly, it has nothing to do with misogyny.

There will always be a very small percentage of voters who do not believe that a woman should be president. But the majority of Americans, Republicans and Democrats, reward their support for those who seem very competent and bring a wealth of experience. Above all, the platform of a candidate must align with what voters really see as the best way forward for the country: the genre is not usually a consideration.

Gillibrand's turn as a presidential candidate was not at all memorable. When a woman politician seems to focus almost exclusively on women's issues, the message is a bit too much of an imbalance in such a diverse country. Gillibrand is wrong. And as polls show, voters are not interested.

Kimberly Ross (@SouthernKeeks) is a contributor to the Washington ExaminerThe blog Beltway Confidential and a columnist at Arc Digital.

Source link