Lyles: ‘Year of Woman?’ Maybe not

As we begin to speculate about the first of President Trump’s mid-term elections this year, it is tempting to look even further ahead and begin to speculate about the 2020 presidential race.

While Hillary Clinton was hammering the final nails in her political coffin during her now infamous “What Happened” book tour debacle, feminists on the left were busily framing the narrative, picked up on by media outlets such as Politico, that 2020 will be “The Year of the Woman.” The narrative is largely based on premises that don’t withstand even cursory scrutiny.

One such premise is that 60 percent of the Democrat Party primary election voters were women who will be even more motivated to repair the non-election of Hillary in 2016. The reality that 42 percent of women voted for Trump in the general election disproves leftist dogma that all women are aligned with them.

Most non-leftist voters have moved beyond gender and identity politics. They want competent leaders in office, regardless of race or gender, which is what true equal opportunity is all about. They realize that because Hillary Clinton had more money, a larger organization, the almost-total backing of the media, and complete control of her party, she had a better opportunity to be president than anyone in history. She didn’t lose because she was a woman. If gender bias was the determinant, she would have never led in the polls.

Ms. Clinton made the classic mistake of thinking that listing past jobs she held on her resume was more important than job performance. Although a marginally competent politician, she was a largely incompetent statesperson. Her ultimate downfall was her lack of achievement throughout her career.

The second “Year of the Woman” premise that falls flat is the presumption Mr. Trump will be vulnerable in 2020. Based on his first year’s performance, this is extremely unlikely. If his next three years mirror his first, Mr. Trump will be unstoppable.

Now that Americans have shown they won’t elect “just any” woman just because she’s a woman, the left is in a major quandary. None of the current candidates have either the financial backing, organization, or political clout that Hilary possessed. Even worse, other than winning election in blue state strongholds, they haven’t achieved anything. Running solely to become the first female president will win votes from diehard leftist feminists, but is unlikely to sway many others.

It is clear Senators Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Kamala Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are all jockeying for position, while maneuvering to distance themselves from the Clintons. How smart is that? Alienating themselves from the most powerful political machine in history as a way to gain its members’ support simply doesn’t make sense. None has the national following nor the resume necessary to win a presidential race against an incumbent who will by then boast three-plus years of undeniable accomplishment.

So that takes us to 2024. Consider the following scenario. Although Rex Tillerson is performing well as secretary of state, it’s unlikely he’ll serve more that a few years. His replacement? How about Nikki Haley?

Ms. Haley performed marvelously as South Carolina’s governor and accomplished more in one year at the United Nations than Hilary Clinton did during four years as secretary of state. If Ms. Haley performs as well as secretary of state (rather than lining the coffers of her personal family foundation) American voters will most likely elect Republican Nikki Haley as the first female president. That will make 2024 the real “Year of the Woman.”

Lyles, a Poway resident, is a management consultant and best-selling author.