DNC chair: GOP has 'superficial' diversity

[Zioneer]

Considering that a lot of speakers were only on the stage to dispel stereotypes about the party, superficial isn't an inaccurate word to use to the describe the GOP.

Agreed; that is literally the only reason the Utah GOP nominated Mia Love to run in UT-04. Because she's a black female Mormon. They had three white guys who had basically the same political positions as her (read: far-right), but they wanted their own conservative Obama in Utah.

Or, she managed to consolidate the 'anti-establishment' vote behind her against the 'establishment' candidate Carl Wimmer. There was a very real ideological bent to Love's run and that she was black and female happened to be a coincidence. Now, at the convention, because she was black and female and not a Republican stereotype and gave an excellent speech the media poured attention on her. But the idea some people have here that ethnic minorities 'don't count' if they're Republicans is really stupid:

Carl Wimmer had mostly the same policy ideas, same rhetoric, and was liked by similar segments of the Utah GOP. It's completely absurd to claim that Carl Wimmer as a candidate would be fundamentally different from Mia Love in terms of policy or rhetoric, and without those differences, there's only the idea that the Utah GOP want to one-up the Utah Democrats by electing a minority candidate first. That's all there is to it.

EDIT: And wasn't Obama effectively the "anti-establishment" candidate in the same circumstances?

[NY Jew]

even this pathological liar doesn't through Jews on to this list.

Why would she?  Jews have it pretty freaking good in America.  There's no reason to put Jews in the same category as these minorities.

remember that "enlightening", comments like this is why you can never enlighten me in 10 lifetimes.

you do know that Jews are the biggest target per capita of hate crimes.

World Almanac 2010, pp. 128:
anti-Jewish hate crimes: 1010
anti-black hate crimes: 3275

Dated information, of course, but it can't have changed that drastically since then.

the only thing dated is your ability to read English.

A simple misreading does not warrant that kind of insult.

Anyways...
anti-Jewish hate crimes: 1010
Jewish population: 5302245
hc/c: 1.9 * 10^-4

anti-homosexual hate crimes: 1410
Homosexual population: about 5400000
hc/c: 2.6 * 10^-4

[same source]

sorry about the insult but I getting insulted by almost everyone on this forum today (not sure if you were a part) and to top it all off the biased censors closed the previous forums I thought to return it like I was taking it.

the key question is how to define homosexual?

for example according to
nationalsexstudy.indiana.edu

You must be logged in to read this quote.

besides the fact that the definition of gays to me and many other people in this country are the latter category.  (so assume some of these attacks accorded against them)


now using the 2010 census there are 113,836,190 male adults in this country and 120,727,881 females in this country.
now using their percentage of "gays" remember my definition (and foo the purposes of hate crimes they would be counted if they were victimized) there would be 9,106,895 gay males and 8,45,0952 gay females.  For a total of 17,557,847 gays in this country.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

even this pathological liar doesn't through Jews on to this list.

Why would she?  Jews have it pretty freaking good in America.  There's no reason to put Jews in the same category as these minorities.

remember that "enlightening", comments like this is why you can never enlighten me in 10 lifetimes.

you do know that Jews are the biggest target per capita of hate crimes.

World Almanac 2010, pp. 128:
anti-Jewish hate crimes: 1010
anti-black hate crimes: 3275

Dated information, of course, but it can't have changed that drastically since then.

the only thing dated is your ability to read English.

A simple misreading does not warrant that kind of insult.

Anyways...
anti-Jewish hate crimes: 1010
Jewish population: 5302245
hc/c: 1.9 * 10^-4

anti-homosexual hate crimes: 1410
Homosexual population: about 5400000
hc/c: 2.6 * 10^-4

[same source]

sorry about the insult but I getting insulted by almost everyone on this forum today (not sure if you were a part) and to top it all off the biased censors closed the previous forums I thought to return it like I was taking it.

Fair enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

besides the fact that the definition of gays to me and many other people in this country are the latter category.  (so assume some of these attacks accorded against them)


now using the 2010 census there are 113,836,190 male adults in this country and 120,727,881 females in this country.
now using their percentage of "gays" remember my definition (and foo the purposes of hate crimes they would be counted if they were victimized) there would be 9,106,895 gay males and 8,45,0952 gay females.  For a total of 17,557,847 gays in this country.
[/quote]
World Almanac said 2.3% of males and 1.3% of females, giving us a population of 4197695 (My guess of 5400000 would have included children )
I think the difference here is due in large part to your source counting bisexuals. I didn't count them in my tally of hate crimes either.

[NY Jew]

even this pathological liar doesn't through Jews on to this list.

Why would she?  Jews have it pretty freaking good in America.  There's no reason to put Jews in the same category as these minorities.

remember that "enlightening", comments like this is why you can never enlighten me in 10 lifetimes.

you do know that Jews are the biggest target per capita of hate crimes.

World Almanac 2010, pp. 128:
anti-Jewish hate crimes: 1010
anti-black hate crimes: 3275

Dated information, of course, but it can't have changed that drastically since then.

the only thing dated is your ability to read English.

A simple misreading does not warrant that kind of insult.

Anyways...
anti-Jewish hate crimes: 1010
Jewish population: 5302245
hc/c: 1.9 * 10^-4

anti-homosexual hate crimes: 1410
Homosexual population: about 5400000
hc/c: 2.6 * 10^-4

[same source]

sorry about the insult but I getting insulted by almost everyone on this forum today (not sure if you were a part) and to top it all off the biased censors closed the previous forums I thought to return it like I was taking it.

Fair enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

besides the fact that the definition of gays to me and many other people in this country are the latter category.  (so assume some of these attacks accorded against them)


now using the 2010 census there are 113,836,190 male adults in this country and 120,727,881 females in this country.
now using their percentage of "gays" remember my definition (and foo the purposes of hate crimes they would be counted if they were victimized) there would be 9,106,895 gay males and 8,45,0952 gay females.  For a total of 17,557,847 gays in this country.

World Almanac said 2.3% of males and 1.3% of females, giving us a population of 4197695 (My guess of 5400000 would have included children )
I think the difference here is due in large part to your source counting bisexuals. I didn't count them in my tally of hate crimes either.
[/quote]
notice that the bisexual number is way lower, the logical reason is that many of the "gays" are "bisexual" using other metrics.

[memphis]

For whatever reason the GOP is mostly white in an America that is increasingly less so. And that's a huge problem for them. So they have to find minorities to fight the perception that they are anti-minority. But, again, there aren'tthat many minority GOPers to choose from. So we get a strong de facto affirmative action policy within the GOP. Does anybody really think that Michael Steele or Herman Cain would have had their 15 minutes of fame otherwise? It's super hilarious within the context of an otherwise fiercely conservative party.

[Vosem]

Considering that a lot of speakers were only on the stage to dispel stereotypes about the party, superficial isn't an inaccurate word to use to the describe the GOP.

Agreed; that is literally the only reason the Utah GOP nominated Mia Love to run in UT-04. Because she's a black female Mormon. They had three white guys who had basically the same political positions as her (read: far-right), but they wanted their own conservative Obama in Utah.

Or, she managed to consolidate the 'anti-establishment' vote behind her against the 'establishment' candidate Carl Wimmer. There was a very real ideological bent to Love's run and that she was black and female happened to be a coincidence. Now, at the convention, because she was black and female and not a Republican stereotype and gave an excellent speech the media poured attention on her. But the idea some people have here that ethnic minorities 'don't count' if they're Republicans is really stupid:

Carl Wimmer had mostly the same policy ideas, same rhetoric, and was liked by similar segments of the Utah GOP. It's completely absurd to claim that Carl Wimmer as a candidate would be fundamentally different from Mia Love in terms of policy or rhetoric, and without those differences, there's only the idea that the Utah GOP want to one-up the Utah Democrats by electing a minority candidate first. That's all there is to it.

EDIT: And wasn't Obama effectively the "anti-establishment" candidate in the same circumstances?

'Establishment' and 'anti-establishment' mean different things in the context of which party you're speaking about and where in the country you're located, but I was under the impression  (maybe false) that Carl Wimmer was the 'moderate establishment' candidate (for Utah), and that Mia Love, as a 'Tea Party' challenger, used the conservative convention format to win? Perhaps I'm wrong; I read about the Republican nomination here some time ago and something may have slipped my mind.

And Jews are a minority in the US. They're not a racial minority, but they're a religious minority and arguably they're an ethnic minority as well. Jews do have it pretty nice throughout most of America, but that doesn't mean they're not a minority.

[Simfan34]

I see nothing wrong with this comment.

Neither do I.

Me neither

I wouldn't, either, except I'm not a piece of cardboard.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Well duh. That's called marketing. Don't get all pretentious on us, Debbie.

[NY Jew]

For whatever reason the GOP is mostly white in an America that is increasingly less so. And that's a huge problem for them. So they have to find minorities to fight the perception that they are anti-minority. But, again, there aren'tthat many minority GOPers to choose from. So we get a strong de facto affirmative action policy within the GOP. Does anybody really think that Michael Steele or Herman Cain would have had their 15 minutes of fame otherwise? It's super hilarious within the context of an otherwise fiercely conservative party.

Alan West would be popular no matter what his color is.

He is arguably the most popular person by the base of the party.

but because the GOP is the stupidest party politically (the dems might not know math but they know politics) the elite hate him and tried to gerrymander him out.

[Zioneer]

Considering that a lot of speakers were only on the stage to dispel stereotypes about the party, superficial isn't an inaccurate word to use to the describe the GOP.

Agreed; that is literally the only reason the Utah GOP nominated Mia Love to run in UT-04. Because she's a black female Mormon. They had three white guys who had basically the same political positions as her (read: far-right), but they wanted their own conservative Obama in Utah.

Or, she managed to consolidate the 'anti-establishment' vote behind her against the 'establishment' candidate Carl Wimmer. There was a very real ideological bent to Love's run and that she was black and female happened to be a coincidence. Now, at the convention, because she was black and female and not a Republican stereotype and gave an excellent speech the media poured attention on her. But the idea some people have here that ethnic minorities 'don't count' if they're Republicans is really stupid:

Carl Wimmer had mostly the same policy ideas, same rhetoric, and was liked by similar segments of the Utah GOP. It's completely absurd to claim that Carl Wimmer as a candidate would be fundamentally different from Mia Love in terms of policy or rhetoric, and without those differences, there's only the idea that the Utah GOP want to one-up the Utah Democrats by electing a minority candidate first. That's all there is to it.

EDIT: And wasn't Obama effectively the "anti-establishment" candidate in the same circumstances?

'Establishment' and 'anti-establishment' mean different things in the context of which party you're speaking about and where in the country you're located, but I was under the impression  (maybe false) that Carl Wimmer was the 'moderate establishment' candidate (for Utah), and that Mia Love, as a 'Tea Party' challenger, used the conservative convention format to win? Perhaps I'm wrong; I read about the Republican nomination here some time ago and something may have slipped my mind.

And Jews are a minority in the US. They're not a racial minority, but they're a religious minority and arguably they're an ethnic minority as well. Jews do have it pretty nice throughout most of America, but that doesn't mean they're not a minority.

Hmm... The problem is that all three major GOP candidates were Tea Party candidates, as besides the enduring love for Mitt Romney and embrace of Orrin Hatch, Utah is Tea Party territory this year. They (the GOPers) all presented themselves as Tea Partiers, and all three were portrayed as Tea Party contenders, just in different political "flavors". Carl Wimmer was endorsed by Mark Shurtleff (the Utah AG), but most of his endorsements (a random list of some of them) are Tea Partiers. In fact, he was endorsed by Mike Lee, who was effectively the first Tea Party-aligned Senator. It's hard to classify what "faction" Wimmer was representing, but I see him as being aligned with a "back to old-time values" sort of candidate. Not quite a "good 'ol boy" candidate, but a kind of Tea Party-infused version of that.

Mia Love is easy to classify; she was candidate for the long-term political strategists, and for those who thought Carl Wimmer or Stephen Sandstrom couldn't beat Matheson. I maintain that her (admittedly inspiring) story and ethnicity/gender was part of why she was ultimately chosen, because the Utah and national GOP needed a candidate who they could point to as part of their new vision, someone that they could use to say "See, look at our forward-thinking ideas! We're concerned about the debt and we're becoming more inclusive of minorities! We're growing as a party!" The other candidates had similar records and rhetoric, so other than the "up-and-coming young minority candidate" factor and her (then-current) lack of divisiveness, there's no explanation for why she was chosen. She received a lot of Tea Party and out-of-state endorsements.

Stephen Sandstrom would be the closest to an "establishment" candidate, though he was still very Tea Party in his rhetoric. In fact, immigration, his signature issue (his plans were hardliner, Arizona-esque stuff), are a Utah Tea Party plank. So we can only look at his endorsements (I can't find it at the moment, but I remember about 12 or so serving legislators endorsing him), and his quick abandonment of Tea Partier immigration plans as signs of his establishment nature.

[Donerail]

For whatever reason the GOP is mostly white in an America that is increasingly less so. And that's a huge problem for them. So they have to find minorities to fight the perception that they are anti-minority. But, again, there aren'tthat many minority GOPers to choose from. So we get a strong de facto affirmative action policy within the GOP. Does anybody really think that Michael Steele or Herman Cain would have had their 15 minutes of fame otherwise? It's super hilarious within the context of an otherwise fiercely conservative party.

Alan West would be popular no matter what his color is.

He is arguably the most popular person by the base of the party.

but because the GOP is the stupidest party politically (the dems might not know math but they know politics) the elite hate him and tried to gerrymander him out.

The GOP didn't gerrymander him out; FL-22 was a hideous gerrymander until the voters decided to change it through the Fair Districts Initiative, which meant legislative districts in Florida had to be drawn with some degree of sanity and couldn't look like, say, these (a few of them are VRA stuff, others are simply gerrymandering):