Made me laugh, "the Republicans, a diverse group of multiple races, ages, and genders", really? hahahaha

**Rubs hands together** This is gonna be a fun post.

Diversity in the GOP Presidential Race:

1 Women = Carly Fiorina
1 African American = Ben Carson
2 Latinos = Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio
1 Indian-American = Bobby Jindal
5 Candidate with at least 1 immigrant parent - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump, and Rick Santorum
0 Jewish

Diversity in the Democratic Presidential Race:

1 Women = Hillary Clinton
0 African Americans
0 Latinos
0 Indian-Americans
0 Candidates with at least 1 immigrant parent
1 Jewish = Bernie Sanders

Congrats, Jai, you can name presidential candidates.
No really

wtf, so now only the presidential candidate matters? ok then, let's let Obama do whatever he wants.

There was a logic jump in there, but its not actually that big of one, and can be explained.

No. I never said that only presidential candidates matter, but don't be wrong they do matter.

Trying to become your party's presidential nominee requires popularity, respect, name recognition, and several other variables. Its interesting who the Democratic Party thinks and wants to win the White House and Senate Leadership positions (old, white dudes with some women). As much as Democrats talk about diversity at the highest levels, they don't show a strong flavoring of it in their top leadership (yeah yeah I know you'll throw Obama right back :P) in general.

Also consider another form of diversity - the diversity of ideology. The Republican Party is the clear big-tent party in America, that's why Michael Bloomberg and Ted Cruz can run under the party name. The Republican Party now attracts populists, libertarians, tea party conservatives, state's righters, secessionists, free market centrists, Reagan democrats, social conservatives, and paleoconservatives. The democratic party represents who? Populists, statists, liberals, progressives, democratic-socialists, and socialists (basically 50 shades of red). Where are all the moderate Democrats? Where are all the DINOs (Democrats in Name Only)? Oh yeah they don't exist. Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb got less than 1% in primary polling support (that's less than Martin O'Malley and that's saying something). There's no enemy to the right of Hillary and Bernie in the Democratic Party and that's an ideological shame. The Democratic Party represents the epitome of ideological purism and narrowism.

Edited 2/15/2016 02:40:32

Japan77, the right is far more diverse, for good reason.

lol Japan bad move, you have released " The Hindu "

Well, as this election is showing, the extremists only vote in the primary, and actually Clinton is considered center-left, so there's that. Also, you do realize that from voter demographics, as well as politicians actually in office that the democratic party is a much more diverse group in the terms of race, sex, and age. Yes, the top currently seems to be filled with white males, and a few white females, but democrats don't have the tea party overthrowing decades-old experience congressmen, so people are just moving up the ladder, and the current leaders where initially elected back when the race of representative could be considered a negative voting factor. Also, if you're arguing diversity of ideology, I would say out of the group you named for the republicans, exactly 2 matter(Reagan conservatives and Tea Party conservatives). And for the democrats, its the same(Liberals and Progressives). Lastly, I would like to conclude with this statement, I'm not a democrat, but rather a near-socialist.

A vote for Bernie is a vote for his vice president

Which is still better than a vote for any of the Republicans on offer.

Also, you do realize that from voter demographics, as well as politicians actually in office that the democratic party is a much more diverse group in the terms of race, sex, and age.

THAT'S THE POINT!

The young and minority voters are putting their votes in for old white people, but white people are voting for diverse people.

Bernie Sanders is already dead, it's just that nobody's told him yet.

Which is still better than a vote for any of the Republicans on offer.

Not by far. It all depends on what you want more - not putting the troops in every country with the letter "a", or repairing America's home economy.

Edited 2/15/2016 06:21:15

Of course the Republican field was more diversified, there were more candidates running in the first place.

Appearances are important. Trump doesn't look anything like 70 and radiates great energy. Bernie looks old but he is an extremely energetic figure as well. McCain wasn't the most inspiring figure in 2008. Perceptions, appearances and first impressions are always more powerful than facts and figures.

Perceptions, appearances and first impressions are always more powerful than facts and figures.

The fact that this is true pisses me off. With the arrival of television people voted more on people's looks more and more. Kennedy won because of television. Obama won because of television. I'm sure a couple more did as well.

Obama won because of the Internet.

The reason the Republicans are trying to field 'diverse' candidates is simply because they are trying to compete with an outgoing Black president and an apparent front-runner who's a woman.

Last election they tried to diversify with Sarah Palin. (Look how well that went.) That's about the extent of their 'diversity'. It's just a show to appeal to a broader audience; to maximize chances of winning the general election. There's no *real* diversity in the Republican party. That's why it's such a laugh to read some of you guys trying to say the exact opposite of reality.

By the way, if Trump gets the nomination, all this talk of Republican diversity will be moot. The base will have chosen their man: an obnoxious old rich white guy, the epitome of the 1%. Maybe he'll have a latino guy for his VP candidate side-kick (yay, diversity!).

Edited 2/15/2016 15:43:06

Yes and if they have Rafael Eduardo Cruz as their candidate and go up against Hillary, they will have the first Hispanic candidate in the history of the United States. Points if they have another Hispanic as the VP ^_^

Trump is the best candidate for those who want someone competent regardless of skin color or genitals. It's sad that the Democratic front-runner is a complete and utter failure whose only "argument" is her vagina.

as this election is showing, the extremists only vote in the primary

That's true of the left and the right buddy. Far-left progressives (bordering on socialists) are voting for Bernie and angry populists and tea party conservatives are voting for Trump and Cruz.

current leaders where initially elected back when the race of representative could be considered a negative voting factor.

So why doesn't anyone primary them? Don't you find it odd that the only Democrats that do make it to the highest leadership positions are old and white? Look at Bob Menendez (Latino Senator from NJ) and Tulsi Gabbard (Indian Rep from Hawaii). Both criticized Obama's foreign policy...the former on the Iran Deal and the latter on the war with ISIS. What happened? They got absolutely destroyed in the Democratic media. This is what happens when Democrats try to express a "diversity of viewpoints"...they get censored by the progressive wing of the party which has eliminated every ounce of centrism in the party. FreedomWorks, a conservative and libertarian foundation, rated all Senators and Representatives in the current congress. The most conservative Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, got a score of 20. The most liberal Republican Senator, Susan Collins, got a score of 7. Just read that...the Republican party has more liberal Republicans than the Democrats have conservative Democrats and that's just a fact. The Republican Party is hands down the most diverse ideological party. We are the Big Tent Party of America. If I had my way, both Kasich and Trump would be thrown out of the party for not being Conservative enough, but the RNC is full of kinder people than me.

http://congress.freedomworks.org/keyvotes/senate/2015#party=Republican&sort=score_low

The reason the Republicans are trying to field 'diverse' candidates is simply because they are trying to compete with an outgoing Black president and an apparent front-runner who's a woman.

Eh there's a logic jump here. The RNC does not "choose" who gets to run for the party. These candidates decide of their own free will to run and to run under the Republican Party name, based on name recognition and popularity. Ben Carson isn't popular because he's a Black Republican. Ben Carson is popular because he's a conservative who went from being dirt poor in Detroit to being one of the foremost neurosurgeons in the world. Republicans aren't "trying" to field a diverse candidate...they "are" fielding a diverse group of candidates.

Edited 2/15/2016 16:17:01

The RNC does not "choose"

I didn't say "the RNC", I said "the Republicans". Yes, Republicans *do* choose who gets to have a chance at the nomination, with dollars, support, and votes.

Republicans aren't "trying" to field a diverse candidate...they "are" fielding a diverse group of candidates.

Yes, "trying", as in, failing. Of the current candidates, only 1 or 2 have any shot at winning the general election. The others are just the dregs of the 'diversity' barrel.

Edited 2/15/2016 16:40:45

Quick question for Jai and any other 'Republicans are the diverse party' folks: Do you seriously believe that Sarah Palin was *actually* decently qualified to hold the position of President of the US (by virtue of being a VP, and hence the 'backup plan' if McCain happened to have died while President)?

President Sarah Palin: A good idea and sign of Republican diversity? Or joke at best, nightmare at worst, and sign that the Republicans couldn't into real diversity if they tried?

Edited 2/15/2016 17:04:00