If they're
female voters in Kentucky, and they're interested in a functioning economy, it turns out they may want a candidate who's not anti-coal, even if she's a card-carrying member of the no-war-on-women party:
Simply having the correct set of genitals does not mean that one is going to fall in line with the predicted talking points of the day. The women voters of Kentucky seem to have more on their minds than just how much contraception costs. They have families to raise and bills to pay like anyone else. When the Democrats run a candidate who is anti-coal and so many jobs in the local economy depend on that industry, that resonates more than hours of glam commercials. Bluegrass values tend to be fairly old school, and I’m guessing that a lot of these Southern Belles don’t spend their days glued to the latest talking points from Debbie Wassermann-Schultz.
Maybe … just maybe … you have to really talk to – and listen to – the voters and look beyond their gender, their skin color or which church they attend. What a novel concept.
3 comments:
A very similar point to the one I was just raising about the NYT "analysis" of the Georgia Senate race.
Nah- all you have to do is have the vote counters in your pocket.
That War on Women using ebola and enterovirus is getting some kills in.
It's a hard choice between being devastated by the war and being devastated by the coal industry.
Post a Comment