Category: Evan Boudreau

Marco Rubio: Adult-Splainer…or Adult in the Room?


Senator Marco Rubio just can’t win. 

Last Saturday, during the March For Our Lives in support of tighter gun control, USA Today blared the homepage headline “Rubio adult-splains how change is made to marchers.”  The unflattering term adult-splain, an obvious spinoff of mansplain and whitesplain, cleverly paints Rubio as a condescending Republican provocateur toward an aggrieved Democrat group of young student marchers.  Clearly, USA Today hopes the politically charged language will act as clickbait for a certain audience into reading its material.

Since USA Today offers opinion commentary in addition to news reports, one might assume that the trolling headline would link to an opinion piece.  After all, as recently as July 2016, Media Bias Fact Check declared USA Today an unbiased media source with a high factual reporting rate.  Alas, the homepage headline links to a news article by digital editor William Cummings, who describes his job as “part of the night crew that makes sure we bring readers all the latest breaking news.”

And what news did Cummings break about the adult-splaining Rubio?  The senator released a statement commending the marchers, respecting their views on gun control, not agreeing with all their proposals, and urging both sides to find common ground to improve the status quo. 

That’s it.  No patronization.  No condescension.  No adult-splaining.

Granted, Cummings’s article does not mention adult-splaining at all, and he may not be responsible for editing the goading homepage headline.  However, his news report is still inaccurate and unkind to Rubio.  After describing the gist of Rubio’s statement, which seemed the sole point of the report, Cummings inexplicably ends with this:

On Saturday, students wore orange $1.05 price tags – the amount Rubio has received from the gun lobby divided by the number of students in Florida – to suggest that’s how much their lives were worth to him.  Rubio was savaged during a Feb. 21 CNN town hall where students demanded Rubio refuse to accept future contributions from the gun lobby.  Rubio, who declined to meet that demand, was called “pathetically weak” by the father of one girl who was murdered in the shooting.

First of all, some students did wear price tags to knock Rubio, but what does that have to do with his adult-splaining statement?  Such cherry-picking reporting is worthy of unabashed leftist organizations like Huffington Post and ThinkProgress, but not the mainstream media.  If an unbiased news report absolutely required partisan imagery of the march, providing a second example more sympathetic to Rubio would have been fair and balanced.  For instance, a marcher’s sign of Rubio’s forehead smeared with a “blood cross,” clearly mocking his Catholic faith, is certainly as newsworthy.

Secondly, at the CNN town hall, Fred Guttenberg opened the questioning to Rubio by calling his response to the shooting “pathetically weak.”  However, the memorable six-minute exchange included banning semi-automatic weapons and never once covered taking money from the NRA.  While obviously a grieving father, Guttenberg is now also a gun control activist and should be described as such by the media.  Later in the town hall, a single student (not multiple students), March for Our Lives key organizer Cameron Kasky, did ask Rubio to stop accepting contributions from the NRA. 

Interestingly, Kasky gave the Florida State Legislature “C” and “C-minus” grades for passing the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act.  The new law bans bump stocks, raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, requires a three-day waiting period, and better allows law enforcement to seize firearms from those deemed mentally unfit.  Though imperfect, Kasky praised the bill as “great steps in the right direction.”  Most of Kasky’s colleagues agree to varying degrees.  You know who else thought the bill was imperfect but supported it?   The nefarious adult-splainer himself, Marco Rubio.   

And who deemed the Florida bill too imperfect to support?  Most Democrats of the Florida State Legislature.  The bill, signed into law by the Republican governor, was supported by just three of 15 Democrats in the Florida Senate and ten of 41 Democrats in the Florida House.  Put simply, most Democrats voted to keep the “F” status quo instead of accepting a “C” compromise. 

Sadly, this trend is commonplace for most progressive politicians: clamor for progress; be offered the path for progress; and purposely reject that opportunity to maintain maximum divisiveness, stoke the political fires, and satiate a voting bloc to get re-elected.  To be fair, far-right politicians sometimes play this game as well. 

Incredibly, both stricter gun controls and the NRA have mostly polled favorably for decades, a distinctly American dichotomy.  Even with the recent bombardment of bad press toward the gun lobby, CNN polled NRA approval at 46 percent after the Parkland shooting.  By comparison, the same CNN poll had President Trump’s approval at 35 percent.  Last month, Morning Consult asked if Americans were more inclined to do business with a company affiliated with the NRA: 33 percent said yes, 32 percent said no, and 34 percent did not care either way.  The favorability of some companies that cut ties with the NRA has declined steeply. 

The country is truly divided on the gun control debate, and Rubio is one of the few adults in the room urging compromise.  If that is spun as adult-splaining by the left, that is a sad but predictable symbol of the political times we live in.  But when spun as adult-splaining by a supposedly unbiased news source, that is outrageous and unacceptable.  For such a divisive and important topic as gun control, the mainstream media must do better.  All Americans are owed as much.

Read carefully, folks.

Evan Boudreau is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Daily Caller.  Evan detests social media but can be reached at evanboudreaufeedback@gmail.com.

Senator Marco Rubio just can’t win. 

Last Saturday, during the March For Our Lives in support of tighter gun control, USA Today blared the homepage headline “Rubio adult-splains how change is made to marchers.”  The unflattering term adult-splain, an obvious spinoff of mansplain and whitesplain, cleverly paints Rubio as a condescending Republican provocateur toward an aggrieved Democrat group of young student marchers.  Clearly, USA Today hopes the politically charged language will act as clickbait for a certain audience into reading its material.

Since USA Today offers opinion commentary in addition to news reports, one might assume that the trolling headline would link to an opinion piece.  After all, as recently as July 2016, Media Bias Fact Check declared USA Today an unbiased media source with a high factual reporting rate.  Alas, the homepage headline links to a news article by digital editor William Cummings, who describes his job as “part of the night crew that makes sure we bring readers all the latest breaking news.”

And what news did Cummings break about the adult-splaining Rubio?  The senator released a statement commending the marchers, respecting their views on gun control, not agreeing with all their proposals, and urging both sides to find common ground to improve the status quo. 

That’s it.  No patronization.  No condescension.  No adult-splaining.

Granted, Cummings’s article does not mention adult-splaining at all, and he may not be responsible for editing the goading homepage headline.  However, his news report is still inaccurate and unkind to Rubio.  After describing the gist of Rubio’s statement, which seemed the sole point of the report, Cummings inexplicably ends with this:

On Saturday, students wore orange $1.05 price tags – the amount Rubio has received from the gun lobby divided by the number of students in Florida – to suggest that’s how much their lives were worth to him.  Rubio was savaged during a Feb. 21 CNN town hall where students demanded Rubio refuse to accept future contributions from the gun lobby.  Rubio, who declined to meet that demand, was called “pathetically weak” by the father of one girl who was murdered in the shooting.

First of all, some students did wear price tags to knock Rubio, but what does that have to do with his adult-splaining statement?  Such cherry-picking reporting is worthy of unabashed leftist organizations like Huffington Post and ThinkProgress, but not the mainstream media.  If an unbiased news report absolutely required partisan imagery of the march, providing a second example more sympathetic to Rubio would have been fair and balanced.  For instance, a marcher’s sign of Rubio’s forehead smeared with a “blood cross,” clearly mocking his Catholic faith, is certainly as newsworthy.

Secondly, at the CNN town hall, Fred Guttenberg opened the questioning to Rubio by calling his response to the shooting “pathetically weak.”  However, the memorable six-minute exchange included banning semi-automatic weapons and never once covered taking money from the NRA.  While obviously a grieving father, Guttenberg is now also a gun control activist and should be described as such by the media.  Later in the town hall, a single student (not multiple students), March for Our Lives key organizer Cameron Kasky, did ask Rubio to stop accepting contributions from the NRA. 

Interestingly, Kasky gave the Florida State Legislature “C” and “C-minus” grades for passing the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act.  The new law bans bump stocks, raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, requires a three-day waiting period, and better allows law enforcement to seize firearms from those deemed mentally unfit.  Though imperfect, Kasky praised the bill as “great steps in the right direction.”  Most of Kasky’s colleagues agree to varying degrees.  You know who else thought the bill was imperfect but supported it?   The nefarious adult-splainer himself, Marco Rubio.   

And who deemed the Florida bill too imperfect to support?  Most Democrats of the Florida State Legislature.  The bill, signed into law by the Republican governor, was supported by just three of 15 Democrats in the Florida Senate and ten of 41 Democrats in the Florida House.  Put simply, most Democrats voted to keep the “F” status quo instead of accepting a “C” compromise. 

Sadly, this trend is commonplace for most progressive politicians: clamor for progress; be offered the path for progress; and purposely reject that opportunity to maintain maximum divisiveness, stoke the political fires, and satiate a voting bloc to get re-elected.  To be fair, far-right politicians sometimes play this game as well. 

Incredibly, both stricter gun controls and the NRA have mostly polled favorably for decades, a distinctly American dichotomy.  Even with the recent bombardment of bad press toward the gun lobby, CNN polled NRA approval at 46 percent after the Parkland shooting.  By comparison, the same CNN poll had President Trump’s approval at 35 percent.  Last month, Morning Consult asked if Americans were more inclined to do business with a company affiliated with the NRA: 33 percent said yes, 32 percent said no, and 34 percent did not care either way.  The favorability of some companies that cut ties with the NRA has declined steeply. 

The country is truly divided on the gun control debate, and Rubio is one of the few adults in the room urging compromise.  If that is spun as adult-splaining by the left, that is a sad but predictable symbol of the political times we live in.  But when spun as adult-splaining by a supposedly unbiased news source, that is outrageous and unacceptable.  For such a divisive and important topic as gun control, the mainstream media must do better.  All Americans are owed as much.

Read carefully, folks.

Evan Boudreau is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Daily Caller.  Evan detests social media but can be reached at evanboudreaufeedback@gmail.com.



Source link

The Loser of the Week Wasn't Kushner or Seuss, but the Media


Between the revelations of Ivanka Trump’s husband being female and Dr. Seuss being racist, last week was an amazing week for tabloidy mainstream news. Sadly, the media let the American public down yet again, offering cheap journalism, little context, blatant falsehoods, and inadequate corrections.

Let’s start with poor Jared Kushner, son-in-law and senior advisor to President Trump.  Wired.com, described by Media Bias Fact Check as a left-of-center media source, reported that Kushner has been registered to vote as a woman since 2009.  Using this fact as the basis for their hatchet job, Wired shreds Kushner with accusations ranging from purposeful voter fraud to sheer incompetency, including this doozy:

“Is Kushner a woman? Did he just accidentally fill out the form incorrectly? Is he the victim of a malicious voter impersonation scheme? Unfortunately, there’s absolutely no way to know for sure, because he has yet to provide WIRED with a comment. But based on his recent history with paperwork, option two seems like a pretty safe bet.”

Predictably, the usual media suspects pounced on the “scandal” as breaking front-page news, including CNN and the Washington Post.

Surprisingly, New York Daily News engaged in rudimentary investigation, bothering to track down Kushner’s original voter registration. The result?  Kushner filled out the registration form correctly: The mistake was due to a data entry error by the New York Board of Elections. (Before we give New York Daily News kudos, note it has yet to update their original unflattering post on the story.)

CNN’s rather short piece, which includes two authors plus two contributors, has been updated but still contains specious jabs at Kushner and Trump about inappropriate email use and voter fraud. The Washington Post contains similar nefarious inferences as CNN but manages to go a step further, declaring that “maybe” Kushner was not responsible for the registration error.  Of course, there is no “maybe” about it, as confirmed by Board of Elections Executive Director Michael Ryan, a Democrat.  Furthermore, The Post update is minimally and shoddily edited, with this line duplicated twice within the piece: “Democratic opposition research group American Bridge spotted the error, which was first reported by Wired on Wednesday.”

At least CNN and The Post offered some semblance of a timely correction.  Despite Wired snarkily stating it would be updated with any new information, it took three full days to edit, with the disclaimer that “it has been corrected to remove any implication that Kushner was at fault for the error.” Unfortunately, the piece still includes cheap shots at Kushner, including conjectures of voter fraud, nepotism, and a “chronic inability to correctly fill out boxes.”

Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump donated ten Dr. Seuss books to an elementary school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, only to have them publicly rejected by librarian Liz Phipps Soeiro, who responded:

“And then there’s the matter of the books themselves. You may not be aware of this, but Dr. Seuss is a bit of a cliché, a tired and worn ambassador for children’s literature. As First Lady of the United States, you have an incredible platform with world-class resources at your fingertips. Just down the street you have access to a phenomenal children’s librarian: Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress. I have no doubt Dr. Hayden would have given you some stellar recommendations.  Another fact that many people are unaware of is that Dr. Seuss’s illustrations are steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes.”

Clearly, the story here is Dr. Seuss being racist, and the appropriateness of a sanctimonious, lecture-style letter to a sitting First Lady. However, one would never know this based on the reporting of AOL (via Yahoo). AOL only suggests Mrs. Trump “slammed” a librarian whose sole motivation was to supply more contemporary books to less advantaged children. 

Such cherry-picking, meager reporting is astonishing.  No mention of racism.  No mention of Soeiro dressing up as The Cat in the Hat on her school’s twitter blog to help celebrate Seuss’ birthday.  No mention of the Democrat mayor of Seuss’ birthplace saying Soeiro’s “comments stink and are ridiculous.”  No mention of previous First Ladies reading Dr. Seuss books to children, including Michelle Obama, or if Soeiro would ever dare write Mrs. Obama a similarly toned rejection letter.  No mention of Soeiro’s responsibility to teach her students how to graciously accept gifts, also considering Mrs. Trump’s letter was addressed to the students, not their librarian.

And most overlooked of all, despite Soeiro imploring Mrs. Trump to contact Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden for book recommendations, there has been no mention of Hayden being pro-Dr. Seuss!  She must be a fan!  After all, Hayden wrote the foreword to the Library of Congress’s recent release, The Card Catalog: Books, Cards, and Literary Treasure, described as follows:

“Packed with engaging facts on literary classics — from Ulysses to The Cat in the Hat to Shakespeare’s First Folio to The Catcher in the Rye — this package is an ode to the enduring magic and importance of books.”

​News readers desire unbiased journalism, not lazy reporting containing partisan taunts aimed at bolstering the “Trump Resistance.”  Read cautiously, folks.

Evan Boudreau is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Daily Caller.  Evan detests social media but can be reached at evanboudreaufeedback@gmail.com.

Between the revelations of Ivanka Trump’s husband being female and Dr. Seuss being racist, last week was an amazing week for tabloidy mainstream news. Sadly, the media let the American public down yet again, offering cheap journalism, little context, blatant falsehoods, and inadequate corrections.

Let’s start with poor Jared Kushner, son-in-law and senior advisor to President Trump.  Wired.com, described by Media Bias Fact Check as a left-of-center media source, reported that Kushner has been registered to vote as a woman since 2009.  Using this fact as the basis for their hatchet job, Wired shreds Kushner with accusations ranging from purposeful voter fraud to sheer incompetency, including this doozy:

“Is Kushner a woman? Did he just accidentally fill out the form incorrectly? Is he the victim of a malicious voter impersonation scheme? Unfortunately, there’s absolutely no way to know for sure, because he has yet to provide WIRED with a comment. But based on his recent history with paperwork, option two seems like a pretty safe bet.”

Predictably, the usual media suspects pounced on the “scandal” as breaking front-page news, including CNN and the Washington Post.

Surprisingly, New York Daily News engaged in rudimentary investigation, bothering to track down Kushner’s original voter registration. The result?  Kushner filled out the registration form correctly: The mistake was due to a data entry error by the New York Board of Elections. (Before we give New York Daily News kudos, note it has yet to update their original unflattering post on the story.)

CNN’s rather short piece, which includes two authors plus two contributors, has been updated but still contains specious jabs at Kushner and Trump about inappropriate email use and voter fraud. The Washington Post contains similar nefarious inferences as CNN but manages to go a step further, declaring that “maybe” Kushner was not responsible for the registration error.  Of course, there is no “maybe” about it, as confirmed by Board of Elections Executive Director Michael Ryan, a Democrat.  Furthermore, The Post update is minimally and shoddily edited, with this line duplicated twice within the piece: “Democratic opposition research group American Bridge spotted the error, which was first reported by Wired on Wednesday.”

At least CNN and The Post offered some semblance of a timely correction.  Despite Wired snarkily stating it would be updated with any new information, it took three full days to edit, with the disclaimer that “it has been corrected to remove any implication that Kushner was at fault for the error.” Unfortunately, the piece still includes cheap shots at Kushner, including conjectures of voter fraud, nepotism, and a “chronic inability to correctly fill out boxes.”

Meanwhile, First Lady Melania Trump donated ten Dr. Seuss books to an elementary school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, only to have them publicly rejected by librarian Liz Phipps Soeiro, who responded:

“And then there’s the matter of the books themselves. You may not be aware of this, but Dr. Seuss is a bit of a cliché, a tired and worn ambassador for children’s literature. As First Lady of the United States, you have an incredible platform with world-class resources at your fingertips. Just down the street you have access to a phenomenal children’s librarian: Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress. I have no doubt Dr. Hayden would have given you some stellar recommendations.  Another fact that many people are unaware of is that Dr. Seuss’s illustrations are steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes.”

Clearly, the story here is Dr. Seuss being racist, and the appropriateness of a sanctimonious, lecture-style letter to a sitting First Lady. However, one would never know this based on the reporting of AOL (via Yahoo). AOL only suggests Mrs. Trump “slammed” a librarian whose sole motivation was to supply more contemporary books to less advantaged children. 

Such cherry-picking, meager reporting is astonishing.  No mention of racism.  No mention of Soeiro dressing up as The Cat in the Hat on her school’s twitter blog to help celebrate Seuss’ birthday.  No mention of the Democrat mayor of Seuss’ birthplace saying Soeiro’s “comments stink and are ridiculous.”  No mention of previous First Ladies reading Dr. Seuss books to children, including Michelle Obama, or if Soeiro would ever dare write Mrs. Obama a similarly toned rejection letter.  No mention of Soeiro’s responsibility to teach her students how to graciously accept gifts, also considering Mrs. Trump’s letter was addressed to the students, not their librarian.

And most overlooked of all, despite Soeiro imploring Mrs. Trump to contact Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden for book recommendations, there has been no mention of Hayden being pro-Dr. Seuss!  She must be a fan!  After all, Hayden wrote the foreword to the Library of Congress’s recent release, The Card Catalog: Books, Cards, and Literary Treasure, described as follows:

“Packed with engaging facts on literary classics — from Ulysses to The Cat in the Hat to Shakespeare’s First Folio to The Catcher in the Rye — this package is an ode to the enduring magic and importance of books.”

​News readers desire unbiased journalism, not lazy reporting containing partisan taunts aimed at bolstering the “Trump Resistance.”  Read cautiously, folks.

Evan Boudreau is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Daily Caller.  Evan detests social media but can be reached at evanboudreaufeedback@gmail.com.



Source link

at-painter-og-image.png

Dismissing Third-Party Voters


Despite her notorious reputation for cautiously sticking to talking points, including reading from prepared scripts in cahoots with friendly interviewers, Secretary Hillary Clinton recently spoke off the cuff to New York magazine about ideological diversity and third-party voters. When asked about MSNBC hiring Pulitzer Prize winners George Will and Bret Stephens as token conservative voices to their overwhelmingly liberal team of contributors, Clinton called the move an engagement in “false equivalency,” and further responded:

Why … would … you … do … that?  Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people.  So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It’s clearly a commercial decision.

While the Democratic Party claims being the inclusive “big tent,” its de facto leader does no favors by glibly insulting millions of voters with sweeping generalizations.  From strongly inferring all African-American young men are “superpredators” (roughly 11 million), to labeling half of President Donald Trump’s supporters as “deplorables” (31.5 million), to threatening to put all coal miners out of work (roughly 170,000), and now calling all third-party voters “crazy” (8.3 million), Clinton has singlehandedly alienated over 50 million voters from the Democratic Party.

This is bad news for an already shrinking “big tent” desperately in need of new constituents. According to Gallup, 39 percent of Americans identified as a Democrat in November 2008, falling to 33 percent in November 2012, then plummeting further to 30 percent in November 2016. During the same period, Americans who identify as Independent increased from 35 to 38 percent to 40 percent.

Clinton’s politically isolating tone is a far cry from young Hillary Rodham, president of both the Wellesley College Young Republicans Club and the Wellesley College Young Republicans Club and proud “Goldwater Girl” of uber-conservative Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign, who once asked her pastor, “Can one be a mind conservative and a heart liberal?” Self-describing herself as an “agnostic intellectual liberal” but “an emotional conservative,” young Rodham certainly sounds like an intelligent individual seeking a third party, listening to all sides of debate to determine where she fits on the political spectrum.

Does today’s Hillary Clinton really consider young Hillary Rodham crazy? We can assume not, considering Clinton publicized her conservative past as recently as the 2016 election, a tactic to win over traditional Republicans wary of Trump’s conservative bona fides.  Moreover, Clinton was giddy about token Democrats appearing on conservative Fox News as recently as 2009, so she seems to have valued diverse political discussion somewhat recently.

What is crazy is Clinton’s inference that all 8.3 million third-party voters have no desire to listen to a conservative point of view. In other words, Clinton suggests all third-party voters would have voted for her in a two-way race with Trump. This is a ridiculous notion, as the data proves. According to CNN, Trump would have bested Clinton 19 to 16 percent among third-party voters in a theoretical two-way race, with 65 percent refusing to vote. The New York Times arrived at a similar result: 21 to 16 percent in favor of Trump, with 63 percent staying home. The Times also concluded Trump bested Clinton 26 percent to 11 percent among late-deciding voters who previously leaned third party.

In hindsight, it should be no surprise how poorly Clinton fared among voters open to a third-party candidate. The Democratic Party issued an all-out assault on third-party politics throughout her campaign. Vice-President Al Gore, historically not a fan of Clinton, half-heartedly joined the campaign trail to speak of the “harsh reality” of having “two principal choices.” President Barack Obama unabashedly proclaimed a third-party vote “a personal insult” to his legacy, and nonsensically threatened his constituents such a vote was “a vote for Donald Trump.”

Based on the final third-party vote totals, the Democratic Party’s attempted attack was clearly a miserable failure. The numbers are staggering. Compared to the 2012 election, Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson’s vote total increased from 1.3 million to 4.5 million, the Green Party’s Doctor Jill Stein from 469,000 to 1.5 million, and all third-party candidates combined from 2.4 million to 8.3 million.

Even write-in votes grew exponentially, from 285,000 votes in 2012 to an astounding 1.13 million in 2016.  In Wisconsin, where Clinton lost to Trump by just 22,748 votes, there were over 36,000 write-in votes, which exceeds the total write-in votes from 1976 through 2012 combined. In Nevada, where Trump lost to Clinton by just 27,202 votes, “None of These Candidates” garnered 28,863 votes, a fivefold increase from 2012.

The repudiation of two-party politics, including the Democratic Party and Clinton herself, is undeniable. Considering Clinton was defeated by the most unfavorable candidate in modern presidential history, common sense should necessitate a thorough self-examination of why millions of third-party voters refused to vote Democratic. But despite the obvious data, Clinton and the Democratic Party continue to dismiss and marginalize the third-party “crazies.” Such an undemocratic philosophy harmed Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and may prove the downfall of the Democratic Party in the years to come.

Evan Boudreau is a consultant and freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Daily Caller. Evan detests social media but can be emailed here.

Despite her notorious reputation for cautiously sticking to talking points, including reading from prepared scripts in cahoots with friendly interviewers, Secretary Hillary Clinton recently spoke off the cuff to New York magazine about ideological diversity and third-party voters. When asked about MSNBC hiring Pulitzer Prize winners George Will and Bret Stephens as token conservative voices to their overwhelmingly liberal team of contributors, Clinton called the move an engagement in “false equivalency,” and further responded:

Why … would … you … do … that?  Sixty-six million people voted for me, plus, you know, the crazy third-party people.  So there’s a lot of people who would actually appreciate stronger arguments on behalf of the most existential challenges facing our country and the world, climate change being one of them! It’s clearly a commercial decision.

While the Democratic Party claims being the inclusive “big tent,” its de facto leader does no favors by glibly insulting millions of voters with sweeping generalizations.  From strongly inferring all African-American young men are “superpredators” (roughly 11 million), to labeling half of President Donald Trump’s supporters as “deplorables” (31.5 million), to threatening to put all coal miners out of work (roughly 170,000), and now calling all third-party voters “crazy” (8.3 million), Clinton has singlehandedly alienated over 50 million voters from the Democratic Party.

This is bad news for an already shrinking “big tent” desperately in need of new constituents. According to Gallup, 39 percent of Americans identified as a Democrat in November 2008, falling to 33 percent in November 2012, then plummeting further to 30 percent in November 2016. During the same period, Americans who identify as Independent increased from 35 to 38 percent to 40 percent.

Clinton’s politically isolating tone is a far cry from young Hillary Rodham, president of both the Wellesley College Young Republicans Club and the Wellesley College Young Republicans Club and proud “Goldwater Girl” of uber-conservative Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign, who once asked her pastor, “Can one be a mind conservative and a heart liberal?” Self-describing herself as an “agnostic intellectual liberal” but “an emotional conservative,” young Rodham certainly sounds like an intelligent individual seeking a third party, listening to all sides of debate to determine where she fits on the political spectrum.

Does today’s Hillary Clinton really consider young Hillary Rodham crazy? We can assume not, considering Clinton publicized her conservative past as recently as the 2016 election, a tactic to win over traditional Republicans wary of Trump’s conservative bona fides.  Moreover, Clinton was giddy about token Democrats appearing on conservative Fox News as recently as 2009, so she seems to have valued diverse political discussion somewhat recently.

What is crazy is Clinton’s inference that all 8.3 million third-party voters have no desire to listen to a conservative point of view. In other words, Clinton suggests all third-party voters would have voted for her in a two-way race with Trump. This is a ridiculous notion, as the data proves. According to CNN, Trump would have bested Clinton 19 to 16 percent among third-party voters in a theoretical two-way race, with 65 percent refusing to vote. The New York Times arrived at a similar result: 21 to 16 percent in favor of Trump, with 63 percent staying home. The Times also concluded Trump bested Clinton 26 percent to 11 percent among late-deciding voters who previously leaned third party.

In hindsight, it should be no surprise how poorly Clinton fared among voters open to a third-party candidate. The Democratic Party issued an all-out assault on third-party politics throughout her campaign. Vice-President Al Gore, historically not a fan of Clinton, half-heartedly joined the campaign trail to speak of the “harsh reality” of having “two principal choices.” President Barack Obama unabashedly proclaimed a third-party vote “a personal insult” to his legacy, and nonsensically threatened his constituents such a vote was “a vote for Donald Trump.”

Based on the final third-party vote totals, the Democratic Party’s attempted attack was clearly a miserable failure. The numbers are staggering. Compared to the 2012 election, Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson’s vote total increased from 1.3 million to 4.5 million, the Green Party’s Doctor Jill Stein from 469,000 to 1.5 million, and all third-party candidates combined from 2.4 million to 8.3 million.

Even write-in votes grew exponentially, from 285,000 votes in 2012 to an astounding 1.13 million in 2016.  In Wisconsin, where Clinton lost to Trump by just 22,748 votes, there were over 36,000 write-in votes, which exceeds the total write-in votes from 1976 through 2012 combined. In Nevada, where Trump lost to Clinton by just 27,202 votes, “None of These Candidates” garnered 28,863 votes, a fivefold increase from 2012.

The repudiation of two-party politics, including the Democratic Party and Clinton herself, is undeniable. Considering Clinton was defeated by the most unfavorable candidate in modern presidential history, common sense should necessitate a thorough self-examination of why millions of third-party voters refused to vote Democratic. But despite the obvious data, Clinton and the Democratic Party continue to dismiss and marginalize the third-party “crazies.” Such an undemocratic philosophy harmed Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and may prove the downfall of the Democratic Party in the years to come.

Evan Boudreau is a consultant and freelance writer whose work has appeared in The Daily Caller. Evan detests social media but can be emailed here.



Source link