What’s the difference between a blonde and a viable democratic party candidate for president in 2020? A viable candidate has more than zero supporters. That’s not a dumb blonde joke, it’s actually Kirsten Gillbrand’s unfortunate but predictable situation. The New York Senator is running for president but currently has 0% support among democratic voters. Don’t worry however, because as Gillibrand explains it, it’s all because people hate women.
CNN did a profile on Gillibrand over the weekend and even they couldn’t find anything nice to say about her. They pointed out this inconvenient fact:
Gillibrand’s campaign, despite the joy, has gone nowhere since she announced earlier this year. The senator’s polls are sagging — a recent Monmouth University poll found her with less than 1% in New Hampshire, she has yet to hit the fundraising threshold outlined by the Democratic National Committee — a mark that a series of lesser known candidates have met…
For those of you without advanced mathematics degrees, less than 1% equals 0%. It was cool of CNN to try to make that seem less pathetic than it is.
In an effort to explain why she has literally no support, Gillibrand put it like this:
“I think it’s just gender bias. I think people are generally biased against women. I think also biased against young women. There’s just bias and it’s real and it exists, but you have to overcome it,” said Gillibrand.
Okay, so according to Gillibrand, nobody supports her because all people, including women, hate young women. The first issue with this theory is that Gillibrand is 52-years-old, which is only young compared to grandma Hillary Clinton. The next problem is that Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, both women who are also running for president as democrats, are polling above 0%. If she had said people were biased against air-headed blondes from New York, she might have had a case, but this explanation doesn’t fly at all.
It gets worse for Gillibrand because she also said this:
“Because if Madonna was running, she’d have a million supporters. She’d have more than anybody,” claimed Gillibrand.
If Gillibrand has no support because she is a woman, how is it possible that Madonna, also a woman, would have a million supporters if she ran? The correct answer is because Gillibrand is an idiot who is trying desperately to spin her failed presidential campaign.
The thing is, Gillibrand got her Senate seat because the Clintons put her there. Nobody in the state of New York actually likes her. She got Hillary’s vacated seat and the Clinton’s hooked her up with their unscrupulous donor network. They ain’t doing the same thing with her run for president, mostly because if Hillary can’t be the first woman president nobody can.
The bottom line is that nobody likes Gillibrand and without the Clinton’s dark money, she’s a complete nobody. I don’t know if she had sex with Bill Clinton to get the Senate seat, but she would have to give up a hell of lot more for the democratic party nomination and she doesn’t appear willing to do whatever freaky thing that is.
Kirsten Gilliblonde says she has no support because people hate women, but I have an alternate theory: Even democrats expect more from their candidates than a vapid dingbat with no ideas, platforms, or opinions.
