In her sustained race to the bottom of the 2020 presidential race, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., the feminist embroiled in not one but two #MeToo scandals, got ratio’d into oblivion for quite the proposal: legislation to limit opioid prescriptions for acute pain to seven days.
That’ll bring justice to the Sacklers.
In all seriousness, it’s the sort of ham-fisted failure to address a legitimate issue that’s characterized the pathetic excuse of the Gillibrand campaign. It’s not a far cry from what she and the late Sen. John McCain proposed back in 2017, but the timing for Gillibrand couldn’t be worse.
You may not have realized it, but Gillibrand only technically announced her bid for the presidency earlier this week. In fact, you may not have realized that she was running for president at all. Despite being a sitting U.S. senator and the heir to Hillary Clinton’s New York seat, Gillibrand has stumbled into irrelevance. Her only possible angle, other than running as Discount Hillary, would have been to lean in as hard as possible to her record on combating sexual violence from the military to college campuses to even her own colleagues in the Senate.
Even that strategy is now up in flames.
As it turns out, two of Gillibrand’s male staffers stood accused of sexually harassing subordinates. In the latest story to break, Gillibrand kept the accused staffer on payroll even though a former aide alleges that he didn’t do any work “for about three months after the incident.” In the first story unearthed, Gillibrand outright allowed the accused staffer to stay on.
Gillibrand currently has a RealClearPolitics average of 0.4 percent in presidential primary polling. She trails Julian Castro, Gov. Jay Inslee, and Pete Buttigieg, the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Ind. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has five times her level of support.
Prediction markets give Andrew Yang, a political neophyte running on a universal basic income and meme wars, a better chance at the presidency than Gillibrand.
The ratio of 14 replies per like on her opioid proposal tweet is just the cherry on top of the beginning of the end of Gillibrand’s presidential hopes. The only question I have for her: Why would she interfere in a decision made between a woman and her doctor?
