The Democrats’ Diversity Problem

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
While the results of last month's election are still being digested, and a few races are yet to be resolved, it is apparent that there has been somewhat of a sea change in how both the Republican and the Democrat Parties are being viewed by the electorate.

Fiscal policy remains the dominant distinguishing theme, but there is another that has people talking and it has two distinct faces.

One is that the Republicans are now the Party of choice for a growing percentage of the variety of minorities that have previously voted en bloc for Democrats. Their previously reliably en bloc voting put Democrats in office and kept them in office. If that voting pattern should go away so would all chances for Democrat electoral victory. At least until the Democrats re-invent themselves.

The second aspect of this sea change is that the Republicans benefited by having a number of accomplished and erudite minority candidates come forth and vocally support the Republican agenda. They were not stealth candidates, they did not get any special preferential treatment such as gerrymandered districts, and they won by being post-racial. In other words, they did not play the race card and they won on their individual merits.

How can a Democrat Party with a mixed race President who ran as a black man at the top of the ticket now be so threatened? In good part it is because the claim for being post-racial and post-partisan was just that, a claim and not a commitment.

Even as failing to manage the economy's political consequences continues to worry Democrat strategists through 2012, it will be the rise of post-racial Republican politicians that appeal across racial lines that will cost the Democrats the White House and the Senate.

Democrats’ Diversity Problem

Republicans are making significant inroads in recruiting minority officeholders with crossover appeal.


by Josh Kraushaar

National Journal

Tuesday, November 30, 2010 | 10:25 p.m.

Democrats have a diversity problem.

There, I said it. Many of you reading might be doing a double-take, thinking I went really “against the grain” with this column. You’re thinking: It’s clear Democrats are a much more inclusive party—just look at the fact that nearly one-third of House Democrats are non-white, while Republicans have struggled to diversify.

And am I so naïve to forget Democrats nominated and elected President Obama, the first black president?

But look deeper at the composition of Congress and the governorships, and it’s apparent the Democrats’ strong racial record is somewhat misleading, with its advantage in electing minorities mostly a result of House districts specifically drawn to elect minorities.

Of the 75 black, Hispanic, and Asian-American Democrats in Congress and governorships, only nine represent majority-white constituencies—and that declines to six in 2011. Two of the party’s rising black stars who sought statewide office this year were rejected by their party’s own base. And when you only look at members of Congress or governors elected by majority-white constituencies (in other words, most of the governorships and Senate seats, and 337 out of 435 House seats), Democrats trail Republicans in minority representation.

In fact, Republicans experienced a diversity boomlet this year. Cognizant of their stuffy national image, party leaders made a concerted effort to recruit a more diverse crop of candidates. That resulted in more than doubling the number of minority elected officials from six to 13—and a ten-fold increase (from one to 10) in the number of minorities representing majority-white constituencies.

The numbers reflect an inconvenient reality—even with their more diverse caucus, Democrats face the same challenges as Republicans in recruiting, nominating, and electing minority candidates to statewide office and in majority-white suburban and rural districts. The vast majority of black and Hispanic members hail from urban districts that don’t require crossover votes to win, or represent seats designed to elect minorities. They are more liberal than the average Democrat, no less the average voter, making it more difficult to run statewide campaigns.

These are far from trivial facts. This means Democrats lack a bench of minority candidates who can run for statewide office, no less national office. Most Democratic minorities make a career in the House, accruing seniority and influence but lacking broad-based political support.

The prime culprit in preventing minorities from having broader appeal is the process of gerrymandering majority-minority seats. It has guaranteed blacks and Hispanics representation, but at the cost of creating seats where candidates would have to appeal to a broader constituency, white and non-white alike. For decades, such districts were judicially mandated; in the South, officials still need clearance from the Justice Department to decrease the proportion of blacks voters in a district.

The logic behind gerrymandering stems from the Civil Rights era, when white voters were highly unlikely to vote for African-American candidates, so districts needed to be drawn so black voters could elect their own to Congress. It was effective—and necessary—to bring diversity to a homogeneous body. But now, the consequence of these contortions comes at great expense to Democrats and civil rights leaders alike.

The increase in minority representation comes at the cost of electing more moderate minorities best-positioned to win statewide. And by concentrating so many Democrats in one single district, it also protects neighboring Republicans -- a major reason why Republicans often are behind some of the most contorted gerrymandering plans.

“It’s not in the best interests of Southern voters, it’s certainly not in the interest of people who want a non-racial politics focused on substance and identity, and the content of a candidate’s character, not the color of their skin,” said outgoing Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., a centrist black congressman who lost his state’s gubernatorial primary this year.

The electorate is changing, too. Republicans this year elected two blacks from the South in white districts, Reps.-elect Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Allen West, R-Fla. Two Indian Americans, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov.-elect Nikki Haley, will lead the deep South states of Louisiana and South Carolina, respectively.

The obstacle for many black Democrats, Davis argued, is liberalism, not race.

“There’s no question in my mind white Southern voters will vote for a black candidate if they believe they are sympathetic to their viewpoint,” Davis said. "Tim Scott's election in South Carolina is powerful, overwhelming evidence that even conservative southern white voters will vote for a black candidate, but they will not vote for someone who disagrees with them on every issue under the sun."

Meanwhile, talented black House Democrats looking to broaden their horizons have hit roadblocks—not from voters, but from party leaders and activists. Davis ran as a moderate in his bid for governor of Alabama, avoiding racial appeals and distancing himself from the Obama administration's policies. He didn't even get out of the gubernatorial primary, rejected by both black leaders for not toeing the party line and party activists, many of whom backed his more-liberal, white primary opponent.

Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., a rising star in Congress, finished a distant third in the Florida Senate race, capturing just 20 percent of the vote. He barely won the Democratic vote over Gov. Charlie Crist, according to exit polls, and won just 12 percent of the white vote. Much of his support was concentrated in black precincts.

In an interview, Davis put the reality for his party bluntly: If black leaders don’t broaden their appeal, there will be a permanent ceiling for them.

"If they care about their children being able to aspire to being senator or governor, then they're going to have to recognize that candidates that run only as leaders of the black community... those candidates can't win -- and they will be completely non-competitive out of predominantly black districts," Davis said.

“The only kind of black candidate who can win outside of a state like Massachusetts or New York is one who can win significant support from white, independent voters.”

Contrast that with the GOP’s minority stars. Florida Sen.-elect Marco Rubio, Haley, New Mexico Gov.-elect Susana Martinez, and Nevada Gov.-elect Brian Sandoval are being mentioned as national candidates for 2012. Scott is one of two freshman liaisons to House Republican leaders. GOP leaders are eager to showcase this, partly because of their recent lack of diversity in the ranks.

The GOP success this year in electing minority leaders who can appeal to a wide cross-section of voters should serve as a wake-up call to Democrats, who are accustomed to carrying the mantle of diversity. If Democrats don’t address their own challenges recruiting minority candidates with widespread appeal, the rise of Obama could be more the exception than the rule.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
What's the point of this article? That white voters are better than black ones?
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I'm sure PJABBER will be finding an equivalent article discussing the GOPs diversity problems soon. I await with baited breath.

The term "post-racial" is a myth. We are no where near a society that is post-racial, not in our laws, not in our institutions, and not in our minds. Pretending otherwise is laughably naive. Expecting it to be President Obama's responsibility to forward the discussion on race simply because he is the first black president is in itself RACIST. Why isn't it the job of all of our leaders, regardless of their skin color?

We should not "pretend" that we are all the same. That is like the alcoholic family that ignores the "pink elephant" in the room. We need to learn to celebrate and respect our differences.

There is no such thing as the "race card." It's a made up term created by the privileged group to imply that racial minorities have an advantage (i.e., the "race card" that provides special benefits) that simply does not exist.

The same goes for "reverse racism" for that matter, it is impossible for a minority group to be "racist" since the requirement of being racist is belonging to a dominant group. Since people of color are the minority, they cannot be racist. They CAN be prejudiced or discriminatory, but that isn't the same concept.

For what it's worth, I can't find a single quote from Obama saying anything about being a "post-racial" President...can someone else try looking?
 
Last edited:

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
:D

PJ, you're a hoot. You continually shill the most preposterous anti-Democrat attacks, and you do it with a straight face. As if anyone outside a small circle of deluded nutters would ever buy such elephant dung, but you press on shamelessly. Hilarious!
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
What's the point of this article? That white voters are better than black ones?

True diversity is achieved when minority candidates can run and win in districts not hand drawn to get a particular minority group elected.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
The same goes for "reverse racism" for that matter, it is impossible for a minority group to be "racist" since the requirement of being racist is belonging to a dominant group. Since people of color are the minority, they cannot be racist. They CAN be prejudiced or discriminatory, but that isn't the same concept.

This simple statement illustrates time and again exactly how racist a liberal can be and how they justify being so.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
:D

PJ, you're a hoot. You continually shill the most preposterous anti-Democrat attacks, and you do it with a straight face. As if anyone outside a small circle of deluded nutters would ever buy such elephant dung, but you press on shamelessly. Hilarious!

I offer up comedy posts when the discussion descends into absurdity. Thank you for taking that first step.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
This simple phrase illustrates time and again exactly how racist a liberal can be and how they justify being so.

I love it when people on the right call me a liberal. Just like I love it when the liberals call me a corporationist. Sorry PJABBER, but you are going to have to work harder.

I am a racist. So are you. It is impossible in our society to be a member of the dominant group and not absorb biases against minority groups.

The difference is that I constantly analyze my own biases, learn how they impact my thinking, and work to overcome them. That is all any of us can do.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I am a racist. So are you. It is impossible in our society to be a member of the dominant group and not absorb biases against.

The difference is that I constantly analyze my own biases, learn how they impact my thinking, and work to overcome them. That is all any of us can do.

I am a minority of one and I don't accept your racial profiling.

But, it is good that you at least have guilt feelings about your biases and thus might recognize the tendency to knee jerk before it happens in front of someone. Too many liberals here keep posting that they are holier than thou when they are anything but.

Pecksniffian, they are!
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Democratic pary had a chance to nominate Hillary Clinton as the first Woman to be on the ticket for President, but they failed. The Media was in love with O'Bammah, and kept all of his bad press out of the news, thus, fixing the election in O'Bammah's favor. This proves that the Democratic party really hates Women.

I think this is why the press also hates Palin????
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
I love it when people on the right call me a liberal. Just like I love it when the liberals call me a corporationist. Sorry PJABBER, but you are going to have to work harder.

I am a racist. So are you. It is impossible in our society to be a member of the dominant group and not absorb biases against minority groups.

The difference is that I constantly analyze my own biases, learn how they impact my thinking, and work to overcome them. That is all any of us can do.

Make up all the definitions you want but it does not make them valid. Racism has a very definite meaning and it has nothing to do with power and being a member of any particular ethnic group. If you want to believe you are a racist have at it but don't assume the rest of us accept your defintion of the term and concept as the correct one. From the OED:

Racism
Pronunciation:/ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/noun
[mass noun]
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior:

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

By those defintions any member of any race or ethnic group can be racist, it has nothing to do with status, power, or being a member of the majority in your particular little corner of the world.
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
I am a racist. So are you. It is impossible in our society to be a member of the dominant group and not absorb biases against minority groups.

This is so wrong. There's a difference between being accustomed to and versed in stereotypes and irrationally hating an entire race of people. The former might lead to the second but that path is not taken by everyone.

Racism exists independent of your race's status in society. There's no stipulation that states racism is ONLY when it's a member of the majority hating on a minority.
 
Last edited:

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Your false modesty is as unconvincing as your claims of non-partisanship. <3

I might have made claims to modesty elsewhere, in another context, but not here.

I am partisan for the one in the right, not the one in the group just because they are in the group.

And you?
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
This simple statement illustrates time and again exactly how racist a liberal can be and how they justify being so.

Can you be racist against liberals as a race? I disagree with Carmen813's assessment of racism. I view racism as possible with any race and the idea of "reverse racism" is entirely false, it's racism and there is no reverse. I do actually however believe that racism is in actuality necessary to end racism. Basically, I believe that to consider a person's race for any reason (maybe medical because some things do affect by race) is racist. But I think we have to consider race in order to end racism. Certain groups and races within this country have been historically kept down so much that it is near impossible for the community to be fixed from within. So things like affirmative action are needed to improve the opportunities to allow for true equality to occur and allow for an end to racism.

I try my best not to judge based on race, but there will always be things I associate with certain races I'm sure. Like flat-brimmed ball caps with a shiny sticker and low hanging jeans that make the person look stupid when walking is something I associate with black people. Which is funny because I've seen other races dressed like that, but I associate the look with black people. And while I try not to judge people on that basis, I will never be able to take a person dressed like that seriously. Does that make me racist, probably. I try not to allow my unfortunate biases affect my decisions though.

Carmen is right though that we are not at a point where we can completely overcome race in this society.
 

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,917
23
81
While the results of last month's election are still being digested, and a few races are yet to be resolved, it is apparent that there has been somewhat of a sea change in how both the Republican and the Democrat Parties are being viewed by the electorate.

Fiscal policy remains the dominant distinguishing theme, but there is another that has people talking and it has two distinct faces.

One is that the Republicans are now the Party of choice for a growing percentage of the variety of minorities that have previously voted en bloc for Democrats. Their previously reliably en bloc voting put Democrats in office and kept them in office. If that voting pattern should go away so would all chances for Democrat electoral victory. At least until the Democrats re-invent themselves.

The second aspect of this sea change is that the Republicans benefited by having a number of accomplished and erudite minority candidates come forth and vocally support the Republican agenda. They were not stealth candidates, they did not get any special preferential treatment such as gerrymandered districts, and they won by being post-racial. In other words, they did not play the race card and they won on their individual merits.

How can a Democrat Party with a mixed race President who ran as a black man at the top of the ticket now be so threatened? In good part it is because the claim for being post-racial and post-partisan was just that, a claim and not a commitment.

Even as failing to manage the economy's political consequences continues to worry Democrat strategists through 2012, it will be the rise of post-racial Republican politicians that appeal across racial lines that will cost the Democrats the White House and the Senate.

Thanks for the update!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111111111111
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
I am a minority of one and I don't accept your racial profiling.

But, it is good that you at least have guilt feelings about your biases and thus might recognize the tendency to knee jerk before it happens in front of someone. Too many liberals here keep posting that they are holier than thou when they are anything but.

Pecksniffian, they are!

I have no idea what your first sentence means, other than to comment that it looks like a red herring.

Please read what I post rather than reading what you THINK I post. I have no feelings of guilt regarding my biases. I was born into this society due to no choice of my own. The biases I have internalized were not due to deliberate choice, but the product of being raised in an environment that is inherently biased. There is quite literally no other way I, or any of us, could be.

Until you lift your own "veil of ignorance" you will remain the same.

I reject your attempts to label me with one word statements (liberal, racist, guilt) that try and narrow me down to a nice little checklist what I am. If you want to have a serious discussion, you are going to need to up the ante.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Make up all the definitions you want but it does not make them valid. Racism has a very definite meaning and it has nothing to do with power and being a member of any particular ethnic group. If you want to believe you are a racist have at it but don't assume the rest of us accept your defintion of the term and concept as the correct one. From the OED:



From Merriam-Webster:


By those defintions any member of any race or ethnic group can be racist, it has nothing to do with status, power, or being a member of the majority in your particular little corner of the world.

So definitions are fixed are they? A nice little black and white page in the dictionary and I will obtain enlightenment. Try looking up the definition of "liberal" and "conservative" and how it is used on this forum.

If you had read a little farther in the Wikipedia article you would have found this:

Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman has defined racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities&#8221;.[8] Sociologists No&#235;l A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as &#8220;...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy. Sellers and Shelton (2003) found that a relationship between racial discrimination and emotional distress was moderated by racial ideology and public regard beliefs. That is, racial centrality appears to promote the degree of discrimination African American young adults perceive whereas racial ideology may buffer the detrimental emotional effects of that discrimination. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry,&#8221;.[9] Sociologist and former American Sociological Association president Joe Feagin argues that the United States can be characterized as a "total racist society"[10]
 
Last edited:

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,476
19,977
146
While I stopped scanning about here and don't generally bother to reply to Pjabber's deluge of propaganda posts, it is the "Democratic Party".

Translation:

I can't possibly begin to explain why majority white/democrat districts elect minorities far less than majority white/republican districts.

So I'll just latch on to some bullshit and feign offense.

craig lol...
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Can you be racist against liberals as a race? I disagree with Carmen813's assessment of racism. I view racism as possible with any race and the idea of "reverse racism" is entirely false, it's racism and there is no reverse. I do actually however believe that racism is in actuality necessary to end racism. Basically, I believe that to consider a person's race for any reason (maybe medical because some things do affect by race) is racist. But I think we have to consider race in order to end racism. Certain groups and races within this country have been historically kept down so much that it is near impossible for the community to be fixed from within. So things like affirmative action are needed to improve the opportunities to allow for true equality to occur and allow for an end to racism.

I try my best not to judge based on race, but there will always be things I associate with certain races I'm sure. Like flat-brimmed ball caps with a shiny sticker and low hanging jeans that make the person look stupid when walking is something I associate with black people. Which is funny because I've seen other races dressed like that, but I associate the look with black people. And while I try not to judge people on that basis, I will never be able to take a person dressed like that seriously. Does that make me racist, probably. I try not to allow my unfortunate biases affect my decisions though.

Carmen is right though that we are not at a point where we can completely overcome race in this society.

Liberals are not a race.

As I said in my post, my view is that minority groups can have prejudice or discrimination towards others, but that is not the same concept as racism.