How Cynical Is the Democratic Party’s Support for Identity Politics? (Plus a Note on the Ocasio-Crowley Contest)


Albright: “Younger women, Hillary Clinton will always be there for you” … plus that other thing she said.

How cynical is the Democratic Party’s support for identity politics? To this observer, it seems impossible not to notice that those in control of the Democratic Party care about “identity politics” — about supporting more women, more people of color, more LGBTQ candidates, etc. — only when it suits them. Which means, if you take this view, that their vocal support for the underlying principles of “identity politics” is both cynical and insincere.

As I said, this has been apparent for some time. I’ve never seen it documented so well in one place, however, until this recent piece by Glenn Greenwald.

For example, Hillary Clinton supporters in 2016 not only encouraged a vote for Clinton because men and women had a duty to support her as a woman, yet they attacked support for Sanders as specifically misogynist:


In February 2016 — at the height of the Clinton-Sanders battle — former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright introduced Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire rally by predicting a grim afterlife for female supporters of Sanders, while Clinton and Cory Booker cheered: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” she announced.

Though Albright apologized in the New York Times for her insensitive phrasing after a backlash ensued, she did reaffirm her central point: “When women are empowered to make decisions, society benefits. They will raise issues, pass bills and put money into projects that men might overlook or oppose.”

At roughly the same time, Clinton supporter Gloria Steinem said female supporters of Sanders were motivated by a primitive impulse to follow “the boys,” who, she claimed, were behind Sanders. Just this week, the Clinton loyalist and Salon writer Amanda Marcotte said Trump won “because some dudes had mommy issues,” then clarified that she was referring to left-wing misogynists who did not support Clinton: “I also have those moments where I’m like, ‘Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake socialists and jackass mansplainers.’”

Greenwald notes in passing that no one was making the case for supporting Sanders because he would be the first Jewish president, and he doesn’t expect that case to be made in 2020 should Sanders run again.

He concludes from this that “despite the inconsistencies, one of the dominant themes that emerged in Democratic Party discourse from the 2016 election is that it is critically important to support female candidates and candidates of color, and that a failure or refusal to support such candidates when they present a credible campaign is suggestive evidence of underlying bigotry.”

The Past as Prologue: Cynthia Nixon

Apparently, however, Democratic Party interest in electing strong progressive women (Hillary Clinton includes herself on that list) has dissipated in the smoke of the last election. As Greenwald notes, “Over and over, establishment Democrats and key party structures have united behind straight, white male candidates (including ones tainted by corruption), working to defeat their credible and progressive Democratic opponents who are women, LGBT people, and/or people of color. Clinton herself has led the way.”

The article is replete with examples, from the Brad Ashford–Kara Eastman battle in Nebraska, to the Bob Menendez–Michael Starr Hopkins–Lisa McCormick three-way contest in New Jersey,  to the Ben Cardin–Chelsea Manning primary in Maryland. In all cases, the Party backed the white male candidate (or in Menendez’s case, the whiter male candidate) against the woman, the person of color, and the LGBTQ candidate. Not even the smoke of 2016’s identity fire remains.

Which brings us to the 2018 candidacies of Cynthia Nixon and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.

Let’s start with Cynthia Nixon, running against corrupt, anti-progressive NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo sides with Republicans to defeat progressive measures, rules with an iron hand, is white and male. Yet he’s also supported and endorsed by almost every national Democrat who matters:

In New York state, Cynthia Nixon is attempting to become the first female governor, as well as the first openly LGBT governor, in the state’s history. She’s running against a dynastic politician-incumbent, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whom the New York Times denounced this year for being “tainted” by multiple corruption scandals.

But virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male dynastic prince, Cuomo, over his female, LGBT challenger. That includes Clinton herself, who enthusiastically endorsed Cuomo last month, as well as Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who — despite starting a political action committee with the explicit purpose of supporting women running for office — also endorsed Cuomo over Nixon in March. [emphasis mine]

To make the main point again: How cynical and insincere is the Democratic Party’s support for identity politics? Very.

A Local Race with National Consequences: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez vs. Joe Crowley

This cynical drama is also playing out in the race between corrupt Joe Crowley, the likely next Democratic leader of the House (if he survives this election) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The same dynamic is now driving the Democratic Party primary campaign in New York’s 14th Congressional District, a district that is composed of 70 percent nonwhite voters. The nine-term Democratic incumbent, Joe Crowley, is a classic dynastic machine politician. His challenger, a 28-year-old Latina woman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has generated nationwide excitement for her campaign after her inspiring introduction video went viral. At a fundraising event, Crowley accused his opponent of playing identity politics, saying she was trying to make the campaign “about race.”

Despite all that, virtually the entire Democratic establishment has united behind the white male incumbent, and virtually none is supporting the woman of color who is challenging him. Yesterday, the very same Gillibrand who has a PAC to support female candidates and who endorsed Cuomo over Nixon announced that she was supporting Crowley over Ocasio-Cortez. [emphasis added]

Note that these are not low-profile, low-consequence races. Both are positions of enormous power — in Nixon’s case, due to the office; in Crowley’s case, due to his position as the Dauphin to Nancy Pelosi’s soon-to-step-down monarch.

These are races with exponentially greater consequences than usuals. And where is the Democratic Party in this? With the (corrupt) white male and against the woman, as always these days.

“Identity Politics” Is Not a Cookie-Cutter Solution to Electoral Choices

I’d like to make two additional points. First, by any intelligent standard, candidates “identities” should only be one factor only in considering support for them. Only the right wing and 2016 Clinton advocates like Madeleine Albright, quoted above, make the most simplistic argument about “identity” support — and even then, the simplistic argument seemed to apply only to support for Clinton herself and never to other women.

For example, would even Clinton supporters have supported Carly Fiorina against a male Democrat for president? Obviously not. And Clinton herself, a former New York senator, did not support Zephyr Teachout in 2014 when Teachout ran against Andrew Cuomo for governor. Nor did then-Democratic primary candidate Hillary Clinton campaign for Zephyr Teachout in her 2016 race for the the  NY-19 House seat.

Ideological concerns also drive decisions like these, as in fact they should. Fiorina would likely be too far right for Clinton to support, and Teachout too far left. This is a fair basis on which to decide. It was also a fair basis on which to decide support for Clinton as well.

The Ocasio-Crowley Battle Is a Very High-Leverage Fight

A second point: I recently wrote about the importance of progressive involving themselves heavily in high-leverage races — like the Bernie Sanders 2016 race, for example — where the payoff would have been huge relative to the effort. (You can read that piece and its argument here: “Supporting Aggressive Progressives for Very High-Leverage Offices“.)

The Ocasio-Crowley contest is similarly high-leverage — first, because he’s perceived as vulnerable and acting like he agrees, and second because it would, to use a chess metaphor, eliminate one of the most powerful (and corrupt) anti-progressive players from House leadership in a single move.

Again, Crowley is widely seen as the next Democratic Speaker of the House. He would be worse by far than Nancy Pelosi, and he’s dangerous. He has blackmailed, as I see it, almost all of his colleagues into supporting him by the implicit threat of, as Speaker, denying them committee assignments and delaying or thwarting their legislation. He also controls funding as Speaker via the leadership PAC and the DCCC. Even Mark Pocan, co-chair of the CPC and normally a reliable progressive voice and vote, is reportedly whipping support for Crowley among his colleagues.

Crowley plays for keeps. Taking him off the board entirely, removing him from the House for the next two years, would produce a benefit to progressives far in excess of the effort involved.

Progressives, were they truly smart, would have nationalize this race from the beginning and worked tirelessly to win it. The payoff from a win like this is huge.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. cripes

    Oh oh oh, but we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Way I sees it, none of us owe solidarity to establishment Dems that don’t demonstrate solidarity with our interests and our candidates.

    Eight wasted Obama years I spent trying to explain to co-workers babbling about “Winning back the House,” “Supreme Court,” “Voting (Nader, Stein, Sanders) Progressive” is voting for the dreaded Republicans, blah blah blah…is a suckers game when you’re voting against your own interests for phony-diversity corporate Dems.

    Until proportional voting practiced in most civilized nations is adopted,
    (see map here the US keeps company with winner takes-all despots and France and Canada) there can only be scorched earth opposition to the fraudulent “democratic” wing of the duopoly.

    Either that or the veal-pen.

    I’ll vote when there’s something to vote for.

    1. sgt_doom

      Eric Holder: Please declare for the US presidency

      Eric Holder, former attorney general of the USA under President Obama, has publicly announced that he is considering a run for the White House in 2020. (Thanks to that WikiLeaked email awhile back, we know that Citigroup directed a newly elected President Obama to appoint him to the position of A.G.)

      I fervently pray that Eric Holder, of Covington & Burling, declares himself a candidate!

      Only then will the opportunity again present itself to expose Eric Holder — and Covington & Burling — in their involvement with the creation and operation of MERS (Mortgage Electronic Reporting System) and its connection to the global economic meltdown (2007 — 2009), the greatest illegal wealth transfer and insurance swindle in human history!

      How we would welcome such transparency of evil, how BlackRock profited from that economic meltdown, then oversaw the disbursement of those TARP bailout funds.

      Exposure of the network of BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street and Fidelity; exposure of their major investors. Further exposure of the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group and other such PE/LBO giants!

      How the InterContinental Exchange (ICE) was involved in nefarious commodity price rigging, etc., manipulated derivatives dealing and how today they oversee LIBOR rates!

      The further exposure of the influence and perfidy of the Group of Thirty ( and the Bretton Woods Committee ( — oh how we’d love to see such exposure!

      Please declare for the presidency, Mr. Holder!

      1. drumlin woodchuckles

        Holder for President? Oh boy Mr. Peabody! That’s great!

        If a critical difference-making margin of non-voting Black non-voters in Milwaukee were willing to non-vote between Clinton and Trump even at the price of letting Trump take Wisconsin, that could mean that the Race Card is wearing thin. Who exactly would Mr. Holder be able to fool in Milwaukee? He would do well in Hyde Park though . . . getting the Guilty White Privilege Expiation vote. Will that be enough? Will the Madison vote be enough to make up for the Milwaukee non-vote?

        You know who would be a perfect pair? Holder and Harris. Or Holder and Booker. Or some such. Seriously, if the DemParty nominates Holder, I will vote for Trump all over again. And at the Senate or Representative level, I would vote for an old legacy New Deal Democrat if there is one. But if they run a Clintonite, some protest Third Party looks very attractive by comparison.

  2. The Rev Kev

    In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society.
    If push came to shove you would have to describe both the Republican and Democrat parties as bastions of neoliberalism and both parties play games with identity politics as it fractures those who would oppose them and encourages internecine warfare. Like a kaleidoscope shifting focus, the 2008 crash has started off a shift in how politics is done and the success of Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK as well as other leaders is this shift in its first efforts of readjusting.
    Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman? Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term ‘progressive’ is just a term to describe what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi, Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed.

      1. Nanute

        I will be voting for her today. I’ve had visits from Crowley canvassers twice in the past week. Not one from Ocasio-Cortez. Knocking on doors make a difference. Perhaps she has focused her limited resources on other neighborhoods that are more diverse.

        1. drumlin woodchuckles

          Crowley will certainly have vastly more resources at his disposal. Ocasio-Cortez will just have to do what she can with agenda and unfaked sincerity. If I were in her district, I would vote for her against the Pelosiform-Hoyerat monster Crowley.

  3. ChrisAtRU

    Thanks for this. “Kakistocracy” did not begin with the arrival of Donald Trump in the Shite White House, and it won’t end with his departure unless the kleptocracy which currently infects the body politic is eradicated.

  4. Larry Coffield

    I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.

    Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it, consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing debtors.

  5. David

    The obvious answer is “very” and this applies pretty much to every major allegedly leftist party in the western world.
    The fact is that if you want to form a political party and take power, or even make good careers, you have to find supporters and get them to vote for you. Historically, after the growth of modern political parties, they differentiated themselves by reference to social and economic groups. In most countries there was a traditionalist party, often rural, with links to church and aristocracy and the socially conservative, a middle-class professional/small business party and a mass working class party often under middle-class leadership. Depending on the country, this could, in practice, be more than three or less than three distinct parties.
    Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. The problem is that whilst the old political distinctions were objective, the new ones are much more subjective, overlapping and sometimes in conflict with each other. After all, you are objectively employed or unemployed, a shareholder or landowner or not, an employee or an employer, you have debt or savings, you earn enough to live on or you don’t. It’s therefore easier to construct political parties on that basis than on the basis of ascriptive, overlapping and conflicting subjective identities.
    Modern parties of the “Left” have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the membership should follow and vote for. This worked well enough when the markers were economic, much less well when they are identity based. Trying to herd together middle-class professional socially-liberal voters, and immigrants from a socially conservative background afraid of losing their jobs backfired disastrously for the Socialist party in the 2017 elections in France, and effectively destroyed the party. People don’t like being instructed who it is their duty to vote for.
    The other very clarifying moment of that election was the complete absence, up and down the western world, of voices supporting Marine Le Pen for President. Not a single voice was raised in her support, although her victory would have been epoch-making in terms of French politics, and certainly not Albright’s.
    That tells you everything you need to know, really.

    1. George Phillies

      Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the Democratic Party isas described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support.

      Note that many Democrats are totally terrified by the idea that the Republican Party would become an identity-based party, namely the white people’s party, because if the white vote supported the Republicans nationally the way it already does in the south the Democrats would, in the immortal words of Donald Trump, be schlonged. Indeed, that support is now advancing up through the Appalachians into central Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New York. West Virginia was once heavily Democratic. And while some Democrats propose that America is becoming a majority-minority country, others have worked out that, e.g., persons of Hispanic or Chinese ancestry may over several generations follow the Irish and the Italians and the Hungarians and the Jews, none of whom were originally viewed* as being white, by being reclassified in the popular mind as being part of the white majority.

      *Some readers will recall that quaint phrase “the colored races of Europe”. At the time, a century and then a fair amount ago, it was meant literally. Anglo-Saxons were a race. Irishmen were a distinct race.

      1. Michael Fiorillo

        The Republicans are an “ideas-based” party?

        Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated “product” of Overclass-funded think tanks to be “idea-based,” then OK.

        Me, I’ve haven’t seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white) race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago.

        That Republicans will distract, misdirect and dissemble to mask their class and race-based identity doesn’t change the reality of it.

        As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless, African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they are.

        1. drumlin woodchuckles

          George Phillies didn’t say the Republicans had “good” ideas. He just noted that the Republicans have “ideas”.

          A “bad” idea is still an “idea”.

  6. blennylips

    Stephen Fry is back, taking another idea out for a walk in the latest Munk Debate:

    Political Correctness
    MAY 18, 2018

    On the Con side: Stephen Fry, Jordan Peterson
    On the Pro side: Michael Dyson, Michelle Goldberg

    Stephen and Jordan complained at the end that it ended up about identity politics rather than the PC debate they’d rather have had.

    1. IguanaBowtie

      Dyson neatly derailed the whole thing with his ‘mean white man’ line. Could have just been Fry vs Goldberg too, Peterson talked past the others yhe whole time.
      Whole thing deserves a do-over.

      1. blennylips

        I agree IguanaB, Dyson was as awful as Mr. Fry was magnificent – but I could be as deluded as the next guy of course.

        I loved how Fry gritted his teeth at being on the same side as Jordan, but considered the issues too important for a personal tantrum.

  7. johnnygl

    I’m really worried about a repeat of 2016 with a heavy dose of voter purges and reregistrations. Ocasio-Cortez will need a strong GOTV ground game to pull off the upset.

  8. DJG

    Cuomo may be part of a political dynasty, but I recall that when Mario Cuomo was sending out feelers about running for president, there was plenty of “Who’s the furriner?” I can’t find the quote, but some Southern politician opined that there weren’t many Marios and fewer Cuomos in the South. (And when Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket with Mondale, journalists and columnists “miraculously” discovered that her husband was a mafioso.) So there’s white and there’s white.

    Not that I’d vote for Cuomo. And I certainly agree with Glenn Greenwald. But ethnic politics cut all different ways.

  9. DJG

    From the quotes above: ‘Maybe we need to run Bland White Guy 2020 to appease the fake socialists and jackass mansplainers.’”

    Just in case you wanted to have the National Conversation on the Deep Insights that Rebecca Solnit Has Bestowed on Us with Her Term “Mansplaining.”

    1. JohnnyGL

      Pelosi’s been quoted a number of times saying, “we lead with our values”.

      You certainly do, Mrs. Speaker! Thanks for making it clear!

  10. sharonsj

    Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn’t mean a damn thing–it’s what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the establishment.

    Here in Pennsylvania, Republican senator Pat Toomey has stayed in office only because the Dem establishment here has refused to back Joe Sestak, a terrific but rebellious candidate, for years. Last time around, it endorsed a woman over Sestak and another fantastic male candidate–but she was as crappy as they come. As far as I’ve seen, they trot out identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters actually want.

    1. drumlin woodchuckles

      If Sestak and his supporters started a little Third Party just for Pennsylvania, how many votes would he get? If he and his supporters called it the Revenge Against Betrayal Party, how many votes would he get?

  11. PKMKII

    Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power.

    1. Jeff W

      To me, it’s a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If you’re against Hillary Clinton, it’s must be because she’s a woman, not because she’s, say, a neoliberal, corporatist warmonger—it deliberately supplants legitimate policy differences with identity. Not only is it breathtakingly dopey as a psychological theory—because it’s pretty obvious that someone could oppose a person based on those policy differences—it’s also obnoxiously presumptuous: “I’m going to substitute my statements as to motivation for yours.” None of that matters, of course, as long as the work of erasing policy from the discourse is done.

  12. Lee

    And while it surely matters who is in congress and who sits in the oval office, possibly we should all become more focused and engaged with system change rather than just individuals running for office. (although damn am I impressed with Alexandria’s keen appreciation of democracy), To that end…I offer ideas from the brain of Gar Alperovitz …

    1. HotFlash

      Thank you, Lee. About a quarter of the way through Gar’s talk and may need to take a little rest to let my soul catch up. For me, in my community which is being hard hit by gentrification and rents are, for many long-time residents, becoming unaffordable, this might be the exactly the right ideas at the right time. Tomorrow I will be going to the last meeting of our neighbourhood food co-op as it dissolves, after 10 years, and I can’t decide whether I am more angry or sad. It was well-intentioned, but just couldn’t make it work. Perhaps a bad plan, or maybe no systematic plan at all. Anyway. I never really expected to see my $1000 again when I bought that bond 10 years ago.

      Meantime, I will listen to Gar finish his talk, and pro’ly get his book from the library.

      So here is Gar talking about the Evergreen Co-ops of Cleveland: “That is a community-building, wealth-democratizing, decentralized, combination of community and worker ownership, supported by quasi-public procurement, through a planning system using quasi-public moneys. That is a planning system. {It} begins with a vision of community which starts by democratizing as far as you can from the ground up, building capacity at the national level or the regional level, to purchase and thereby stabilize the system in a form of economic planning. Now think about those things. Those are ideas in a fragmentary developmental process as the pain of the system grows and there are no other solutions.

      It is strong stuff, but reading it seems dense and dull, but Gar makes it all make sense on first hearing. So, in anyone interested in community economic action, do check it out.

  13. Synoia


    There, removed the superfluous words.

  14. Left in Wisconsin

    Also noticing that Emily’s List has failed to endorse either Nixon or Ocasio-Cortez. Why am I not shocked.

  15. Livius Drusus

    Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats discuss that identity. You might hear about “working families” and the “middle class” but it really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as mendacious.

    I wouldn’t mind the slogans and euphemisms if there was some substance behind them. I get that Americans generally like to think of themselves as “middle class” whether they are making minimum wage or millions of dollars but at least put some substance behind your rhetoric.

    Both parties are using identity politics to win elections while avoiding the economic issues that every poll indicates Americans care about the most. The result is an increasingly disillusioned and depressed population that hates the entire political system. Almost half of the eligible electorate stays home during election years. Non-voters tend to be poorer while the political junkies who are increasingly shrill, angry and unreasonable tend to be wealthier. These are the people who form the base for identity politics because they have the luxury to worry about such nonsense.

    1. Elizabeth Burton

      Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom, regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter.

  16. drumlin woodchuckles

    I can think of a couple of identity-words to offer to see if anyone identifies with them.
    Ex-middle class.
    Nouveau poor.

  17. Somebody

    An average person with their limited lifespan can barely manage a quota of about a dozen people to truly care about and about 70 to be acquainted with. Chances of any of those belonging to some of those special category people are low to the point of it being irrelevant and worthless to get acquainted with the categories themselves and their cultures/language, unless they live in a few congregation capitals on this planet like San Francisco, capitals which can be numbered on both my hands.
    Unless the average person decides for themselves to care, trying to convince them to care about special identity is tantamount to attempting to rob them of their precious lifespan, over what? Superficial identities. There are religions which worship the supernatural. Now there’s a religion which worships the superficial called Identity Politics or Social Justice Evangelism as i like to call it (as usual it has about as much to do with social justice as Christianity had to do with world peace, and all to do with identity masturbation), arisen jointly as a result of inflated and growing narcissism and unwarranted sense of self-importance personality disorders influenced by spending too much time on social media such as Facebook and Twitter.
    Bah. Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom it trickles down. That’s the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities is that normal people know they don’t matter in the larger picture, while minorities think they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal. The West is simply too bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don’t, a complete lack of prioritization.

      1. UserFriendly

        LOL she did better in Queens than she did in the Bronx. Still not called but 82% reporting 57.2% – 42.8%
        He would need to sweep the rest.

  18. Knute Rife

    Among the DNC/DLC tools running the Democratic Party, the purpose of identity politics is to keep progressives divided and themselves in power. So yeah, cynical.

Comments are closed.