Ladies and gentlemen your new incoming members of the 116th Congress. Notice anyting??

[yllus]

How's this for a fair set of statements:

• The actual racial appearance of Republican or Democrat congressmen and congresswomen isn't actually all that important.
• However, if the lack of visual diversity is a symptom of a problem of Republicans - that problem being Republicans aren't representative of the full diversity of the American populace - the pictures posted should concern you.

To me, it comes down to whether if you think that lack of diversity means something about who Republicans listen to and represent. Given their recent actions I'd say there's cause for concern.

 

[UglyCasanova]

So what? Who the GOP actually elects is what matters.

And some point during the process all three had the lead so you can’t say the GOP wouldn’t nominate them. You can pretend it’s not the case and say “so what” all you like but the party you claim only cares about white males ran a more diverse field of presidential contenders.

 

[Jhhnn]

And some point during the process all three had the lead so you can’t say the GOP wouldn’t nominate them. You can pretend it’s not the case and say “so what” all you like but the party you claim only cares about white males ran a more diverse field of presidential contenders.

I made no such contention. I merely point out that it's diversionary from the reality of who actually got elected this year. You're just doubling down on diversion.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The past two presidential elections the Republicans have ran a diverse field of candidates. There have been a woman, a black, and in 2016 a Hispanic (two really). It’s very relevant to a discussion on how the GOP only cares about white men. And even more importantly imo is the fact the GOP ran these candidates based on their merit and positions, not on their skin color.

 

[Jhhnn]

The past two presidential elections the Republicans have ran a diverse field of candidates. There have been a woman, a black, and in 2016 a Hispanic (two really). It’s very relevant to a discussion on how the GOP only cares about white men. And even more importantly imo is the fact the GOP ran these candidates based on their merit and positions, not on their skin color.

None of them were elected. That's what the topic is all about, the people who got elected. The contrast there is quite stark.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

The past two presidential elections the Republicans have ran a diverse field of candidates. There have been a woman, a black, and in 2016 a Hispanic (two really). It’s very relevant to a discussion on how the GOP only cares about white men. And even more importantly imo is the fact the GOP ran these candidates based on their merit and positions, not on their skin color.

Gosh, a whole four people! Wouldn't want the GOP to rush into anything.

 

[HomerJS]

All I'm trying to point out is that celebrating racial makeup A over racial makeaup B is grade-school level idiocy. If Republicans were doing exactly this (look at all the good whites we elected!) it'd be horrifying and, again, idiotic.

You guys put way too much emphasis on race.

Fine, let's just keep the levers of power in the hands of white boys, instead of representation that encompasses ALL of America. As for me I'm proud of the Democratic makeup because of all its representatives. The one person I hold up for special recognition is Lucy McBath

 

[HomerJS]

The past two presidential elections the Republicans have ran a diverse field of candidates. There have been a woman, a black, and in 2016 a Hispanic (two really). It’s very relevant to a discussion on how the GOP only cares about white men. And even more importantly imo is the fact the GOP ran these candidates based on their merit and positions, not on their skin color.

Neither did the Democrats, but we are talking about who was elected this cycle.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No we're not, your graphic is about this cycle but you made the claim that minorities / women were excluded from top groups for years which isn’t true. I provided who the GOP fielded as contenders for presidential candidate (and I even forgot one, an Indian who was a former governor) which was certainly more diverse than the Dems and more importantly race never came into play. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio who both were front runners at different times during the process didn’t make their candidacy about race and neither did the party, the Republican Party supported them based on their merit and positions not their skin color.

Its important to people who have been excluded from the top group for years.

But maybe we should go your way, its not important that our representatives reflect the entire country, just a monochromatic subset.

 

[mect]

No we're not, your graphic is about this cycle but you made the claim that minorities / women were excluded from top groups for years which isn’t true. I provided who the GOP fielded as contenders for presidential candidate (and I even forgot one, an Indian who was a former governor) which was certainly more diverse than the Dems and more importantly race never came into play. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio who both were front runners at different times during the process didn’t make their candidacy about race and neither did the party, the Republican Party supported them based on their merit and positions not their skin color.

No democrats think that government elections should be about race. They do however recognize that if the voters truly aren't making decisions based on race, and if we believe that people of all races have merit, then statistically speaking we would expect that the races of elected officials would reflect the races of society. For republicans, they clearly don't. Republicans cope with this discrepancy by claiming race has nothing to do with it and pretend the solution is to just pretend everyone's color blind and they don't see race. The problem is that election results show us that race actually is an issue, particularly for republicans. So there are two possibilities. One, republicans prefer to vote for white males (note that this doesn't mean they will do this exclusively, only preferentially). The second option is that republicans believe that white males have more merit than other races and genders. Either option reflects badly on republicans. I'm not surprised they want to try to pretend race doesn't matter.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Explain the Republican field for presidential contenders in the past two elections then if race matters so much to Republicans. You said for Republicans race clearly matters when according to WaPo the 2016 GOP field was the most diverse of either party ever. I can’t seem to square that with your assertion. You said they pretend race doesn’t matter but during the run up in 2015/16 race the minorities didn’t play their minority cards and yet still managed to be front runners. You heard way more about Carson’s brilliance as a surgeon than his skin color, as somehow you’re trying to fault Republicans for this.

 

[Jhhnn]

No we're not, your graphic is about this cycle but you made the claim that minorities / women were excluded from top groups for years which isn’t true. I provided who the GOP fielded as contenders for presidential candidate (and I even forgot one, an Indian who was a former governor) which was certainly more diverse than the Dems and more importantly race never came into play. Ben Carson and Marco Rubio who both were front runners at different times during the process didn’t make their candidacy about race and neither did the party, the Republican Party supported them based on their merit and positions not their skin color.

Yeh, they had all these minority candidates but Republicans didn't vote for them. They obviously didn't vote them into Congress in 2018, either.

 

[mect]

Explain the Republican field for presidential contenders in the past two elections then if race matters so much to Republicans. You said for Republicans race clearly matters when according to WaPo the 2016 GOP field was the most diverse of either party ever. I can’t seem to square that with your assertion. You said they pretend race doesn’t matter but during the run up in 2015/16 race the minorities didn’t play their minority cards and yet still managed to be front runners. You heard way more about Carson’s brilliance as a surgeon than his skin color, as somehow you’re trying to fault Republicans for this.

Why would I look at one election (which resulted in a white male being elected by the way) instead of a sample of many. You don't pull trends from a single datum.

 

[MtnMan]

What did you expect? The president is a racist and a misogynist. His supporters are racist and misogynistic and can be clearly seen in the faces of the newly elected republicans.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Yeh, they had all these minority candidates but Republicans didn't vote for them. They obviously didn't vote them into Congress in 2018, either.

They were front runners at times. They had support. Like highlander there can be only one, but you’re pretending like because they didn’t win they had no support which isn’t correct and further concluding it was because of race/gender but if that mattered they would never have had the lead to begin with. Bernie didn’t win so I guess the Dems hate Jews by that logic.

 

[ivwshane]

They were front runners at times. They had support. Like highlander there can be only one, but you’re pretending like because they didn’t win they had no support which isn’t correct and further concluding it was because of race/gender but if that mattered they would never have had the lead to begin with. Bernie didn’t win so I guess the Dems hate Jews by that logic.

Which is why looking at one election is a pretty stupid way to make a point. Way to pwn yourself!

 

[mect]

They were front runners at times. They had support. Like highlander there can be only one, but you’re pretending like because they didn’t win they had no support which isn’t correct and further concluding it was because of race/gender but if that mattered they would never have had the lead to begin with. Bernie didn’t win so I guess the Dems hate Jews by that logic.

No, the correct logic would be if Dems didn't elect Jews to public office at a rate comparable to their representation in the general public. This isn't that hard.

 

[ivwshane]

No, the correct logic would be if Dems didn't elect Jews to public office at a rate comparable to their representation in the general public. This isn't that hard.

It really is hard for him though. He struggles with a lot of basic things that other people understand just fine (ie what racism looks like, context, and the big picture).

 

[Starbuck1975]

Nice attempt to demonize a diversity of viewpoints.

Odd how the vast majority of Americans are women or racial minorities (or both) and yet all but one new republican congress-critters are white men. What is it about republican policies and positions that the majority of Americans don't support them? Shouldn't they want to change that? Wouldn't it feel good to have your party win without voter suppression tactics and gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering not found in the Senate. One day the Democrats will learn that the popular vote is irrelevant.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Its the old, "people who point out the problem are the problem" routine.

Its ok, he hasn't figured out how useful of an idiot he is.

Right on cue and perfect timing. I was getting thirsty.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No, the correct logic would be if Dems didn't elect Jews to public office at a rate comparable to their representation in the general public. This isn't that hard.

What if 90%+ of Jews voted Republican by default, would you expect Dems to have the same percent of Jews in office as their percentage in the population as a whole?

 

[mect]

What if 90%+ of Jews voted Republican by default, would you expect Dems to have the same percent of Jews in office as their percentage in the population as a whole?

Of course not. Are you suggesting that you believe the republican base is as overwhelmingly white and male as republican representatives?

 

[UglyCasanova]

I’m suggesting the blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats so to expect the GOP to have the same percent in office as there are as a percent of the population as a whole is unrealistic.

For women I have no idea. I’d think there would be more than there are. But I have no idea about the numbers that run though either, if no women run then you can’t draw the conclusions that you’re wanting to draw that the GOP is anti women now can you. If tons of women ran but none elected the. Yeah you’d have a point. I don’t have any idea what the numbers are to even guess.

 

[ivwshane]

Right on cue and perfect timing. I was getting thirsty.

No problem. If you need me just make another idiotic post because I enjoy calling out idiots.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No problem. If you need me just make another idiotic post because I enjoy calling out idiots.

Then you should start calling out yourself