Discussion for article #231683

Who wants to join me in the countdown to appropriation? As in, the GOP congressional appropriation of this great diversity, and appropriation of the economic recovery? Because, you know, it’s totally thanks to them. And that’s what they’ll boast to the public.

10, 9, 8…


They don’t judge candidates by gender or the color of their skin. Is it really their fault that they can’t find qualified, diverse candidates?

Who are also so clueless as to believe the shit they’re shoveling?

1 Like

Your preoccupation with disseminating misinformation about republicans is obvious. Even when the facts show otherwise you find a way of twisting reality and leaving out any critical thinking to help people understand the truth. Let’s start from the beginning. There are 435 congressional districts in the United States. Of those 435 we have 318 districts that are majority white. That’s 73% compared to the 62% of the general population that are white. Of these 318 majority white districts 15 have a representative that is a minority. With respect to the 117 non-white districts there are 44 white representatives.

So contrary to your simplistic argument that only uses the “number” of minorities in Congress to prove your point, let me suggest why your premise is wrong and that republicans are the true party of diversity. I believe that it may be easier for minority Republicans to attract support from white voters than it is for minority Democrats. Only 14 of the 88 minority members in the House are Republicans. But they are eight of the 15 minority House members holding majority white seats. They especially have an edge in districts that are at least 70 percent white. Of those eight seats held by minority Republicans, six are in districts that are 70 percent or more white. So before you start throwing out numbers take a look at what’s behind those numbers.

The fact is that only 62% of minority congressional districts elected a minority to represent them in Congress. How do you blame this on republicans? I will concede a couple of points. The first is that minorities will typically run for congress in a district with a minority demographic. The second point is the power of the incumbent. As long as incumbents, most of whom are white, can prove they are responsive to their constituents and win the trust and support of their minority communities, minority politicians often see little opening to launch a challenge. So what is wrong if a minority district elects a white person to represent them. Isn’t that more important than the color of his skin? As more white incumbents eventually retire, I would venture to guess that minority politicians will be the beneficiaries, especially in majority-minority districts. Regardless of who runs where, shouldn’t our ultimate goal be to elect a representative that we can trust to do their job and fight for their constituents whether they are black, white, Asian or Hispanic!

In our last presidential election we saw 95% of black voters casting their ballot for Obama, During that last election we also saw 44% of whites voting for Obama. So who is more diverse now. Lack of diversity can go both ways - just like hypocrisy.