I think it’s been pretty transparent what Carly Fiorina’s role in this election has been: to talk shit about Hillary Clinton. The wise sages in the Republican Party had to find a female candidate—any female candidate so that it wouldn’t just be dozen men on stage talking about how evil Hillary Clinton is.
In fact, even with Fiorina their gender ratio was still 16 men-to-1 woman. just counting the candidates who have been on a debate stage at one point or another. [It’s even more lop-sided if you count strange outlier candidates who got even less traction than Jim Gilmore.] That’s a lot of men lining up to talk about the evils of Hillary Clinton.
But now that the Bernie Bros and Sanders supporters seem to be doing the gender-bashing for her, does the GOP really need a token female candidate anymore? I mean, nobody can really say Fiorina is remotely qualified to be president, and voters who are looking for no-experience no-nothings have alternatives with Ben Carson and Trump. And Trump has not been shy to point out that Fiorina’s business record is far from stellar.
It’s tempting to say that Fiorina has made a great career out of failing-upwards. HP suffered under her leadership, so she runs for senate. She loses the senate seat, so she runs for president. When she quits the presidential race, will she get to be ruler of the moon?
So now that Bernie seems content to take on Hillary—and progressives are reluctant to call out his supporters for “sexism” since he’s, you know, a progressive—does this make Fiorina irrelevant? Her dismal showings in New Hampshire and Iowa make the case that the GOP may not need to put a feminine face on their Hillary attacks anymore or pretend that they really take Fiorina seriously.