Good news; CNN has finally figured out the cause of a problem plaguing the Hillary campaign: her high unfavorable ratings.What could it possibly be? Setting aside the first few decades of scandals, maybe it’s Benghazi, her private email server, the reluctance to release her Goldman Sachs speaking transcripts, or any number of other things.
But of course not – it’s the liberal media diagnosing the problem after all.Via Mediaite
Errol Louis said during a Monday morning discussion that the reason Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has such high unfavorability numbers in most polls was because of unconscious sexism on the part of respondents.
Don’t see any evidence of sexism? That must be because we’re just not conscious of our own sexism!New Day host Chris Cuomo asked Louis about a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll that found that even among Democrats, Clinton had a 56 percent unfavorable rating. “Let me suggest, because some of her strategists have said this kind of quietly, it’s not really a big thing on this campaign trail: a lot of this is sexism,” he responded
So the obvious problem here is that if Louis is going to charge Americans with sexism for not liking a politician (something my sources confirmed has happened to literally every politician ever), he’s going to have to accuse his fellow liberals of sexism too.
Here’s some more brilliant “evidence” of sexism in the 21st century:Louis also suggested there was an element of sexism to the protest held by Bernie Sanders supporters where they threw dollar bills at her motorcade: “Everybody raises money from all kinds of sources, she’s the one they throw dollars bills at.”
There are two Democrat candidates so we’re not working with much of a sample size, but when one of the candidates is bringing in millions from industries she rails against (finance, insurance, healthcare, etc.) it’s pretty obvious what Sanders supporters were protesting against.
Now I know why Donald Trump has high unfavorable ratings: it’s “hairism.”[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]