Elizabeth Warren claims 'everyone' says they would have voted for her, if she 'had a penis'

NBC News's Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitali has a new book out, "Electable: Why America Hasn't Put a Woman in the White House...Yet."

In it, she says that Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts claimed that many people told her during the 2020 presidential primary campaign that they would have voted for her except for her lack of a penis. Possibly even more hilariously, Warren argued that she could have beaten then-President Donald Trump in the general election.

Vitali wrote: We’d talked about the dynamics of Iowa, her competitors, and the pressure she put on herself not “to screw this up.” But here and now she offered her plainest view of the landscape yet: “Everyone comes up to me and says, ‘I would vote for you, if you had a penis.’”

That may be more preposterous than Warren’s long-time claim that she was of native American descent. Not only does “everyone” not talk like that, no one does. If anything, a handful of folks might be dumb enough to come up to her—or another female candidate-- and say, “You know, I would vote for you, if you were a man.” But even that is doubtful. The fact that Warren is a woman is not going to matter to someone who likes her policies. And no one is going to walk up to her and say, “I would vote for you, if you had a penis.”

Similarly, I don’t believe even the most radical, hardened feminist would walk up to, say, Pete Buttigieg or Beto O’Rourke and exclaim: “I would vote for you, if you didn’t have a penis,” or “I would vote for you, if you only had boobs and a vagina.” They might say, “I won’t vote for you because you’re a man,” but would probably just vote for whoever has the most pro-feminist views… or for whichever female candidate they prefer.

But back to poor old Sen. Warren. If she could have run as a Native American gal with a penis, she might have won in a landslide.

This intersectionality thing has gone too far.

Who’s more oppressed, Black lesbians or white trans “women?” We have reversed the old concept of the melting pot, e pluribus unum, to our existential peril. Black versus white, male versus female, poor versus rich, straights versus gays, the religious versus the hyper-secular, red states versus blue states, coastal elites versus the rubes in “flyover country,” and on and on it goes…”progressives” pitting each group against every other group, atomizing society yet no longer recognizing the value and primacy of the individual.

It is no longer enough to simply be an “American,” we must be described as something like: “an agnostic, non-binary, African-American, Sagittarius trans woman whose pronouns are they/them.”

Whether one sports a penis or not, it should be obvious to all that this is a recipe for societal disaster.

Lincoln said, “A house divided cannot stand.”

A house divided umpteen ways is destined to collapse utterly…and soon.

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com