3 ms·
The real story is that he considers women, military officers, Hispanics, and blacks to be "food groups". Good god, but the press would have a FIELD DAY if a Re
by mynameishere 10y ago
The real story is that he considers women, military officers, Hispanics, and blacks to be "food groups". Good god, but the press would have a FIELD DAY if a Republican labeled such groups with that term. Remember "binders full of women"?
Of course, they're thinking in terms of strategy--in the old days, you'd balance the ticket geographically or politically (and so very different people like JFK and LBJ would run together) but now you do the same but with respect to identity politics. Fun times!
- Spooky23 10y agoIt's only a story if you have nothing to do with politics at all. Pandering to constituencies is all part of the game, and looking at them like any other marketing exercise comes with it. Republicans do the exact same thing. The core "food groups" are evangelical christians, corporate types, gun people, defense industry people, small business people. All of these groups drive voter turnout. There are also "borderline" groups that flirt with both parties as their interests collide. This includes some labor unions (especially where their interests overlap others, like defense), regionally important ethnic/religious affiliated groups (catholics, orthodox jewish communities, cubans, etc) and others. This scales down to the local elections. If you want to be the mayor in a small town, you target the firefighter union + key ministers + senior centers. Make no mistake, this dynamic has always been there.
- serge2k 10y ago> Remember "binders full of women"? I don't think you have quite realized where we are at now.