Why Is the Democrat Primary So White?

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  4 weeks ago  •  39 comments

Why Is the Democrat Primary So White?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The Democratic Party’s electorate is highly diverse, but its top-polling presidential contenders are all white. What gives? This week on “The Argument,” the columnists talk about Kamala Harris’s exit from the race, Cory Booker’s failure to launch and the polling ascendancy of their white opponents. The shock of Donald Trump’s successful race-baiting run for the White House has convinced many Democrats that only a white male candidate can unseat him, argues Michelle Goldberg. David Leonhardt thinks that the order of primaries and caucuses privileges demographically white states and, thus, white candidates. And Ross Douthat says that while Pete Buttigieg ranks among the top tier of white Democrats, both his sexual orientation and his youth set him apart.

Then, “ok boomer” is more than just a dismissive meme. From culture to politics, the columnists discuss why we can’t escape the baby boomer generation.

And finally, Ross recommends a terrifying television series that blends the historical and the supernatural.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
The People's Fish
1  seeder  The People's Fish    4 weeks ago

It's ok because Joe Biden has a black friend names Cornpop, Pete wants to give Illegals reparations and Elizabeth Warren was once Indigenous and Bernie's campaign is plagued with Antisemitism.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1  loki12  replied to  The People's Fish @1    4 weeks ago
It's ok because Joe Biden has a black friend names Cornpop

Didn't he threaten to put him in chains?  How very historically democrat of him.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
1.1.1  seeder  The People's Fish  replied to  loki12 @1.1    4 weeks ago

That was before black children liked his hairy legs and roaches and stuff.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.2  loki12  replied to  The People's Fish @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
It Is ME
2  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

"Why Is the Democrat Primary So White?"

At least they're all " Immigrants ". jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1  1stwarrior  replied to  It Is ME @2    4 weeks ago

And all of them are very, very rich with no qualms of doing more for themselves - not the country.

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.1  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @2.1    4 weeks ago

Yes, they are wealthy with the exception of Pete and Amy...But none of the current administration are rich are they? I'm sure that they are all blue collar workers that in no way would think of enriching themselves. 

And of course you're positive that the very very rich dems would have no qualms of doing more for themselves. Is that inside info or public?

Since I have little experience in being or dealing with minorities I'll leave the brilliance of the seeded article to those that are well versed in the how and whys of being minorities and the democratic party. It seems that we have numerous experts here on NT. 

There is one question though, since the dems according to many here are racists why is it that the majority of minorities are dems? 

Probably all that ''free stuff'' that we get I suppose.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

I don't know - but that "rich" thing has really been bothering me over the past couple decades.  Just doesn't seem as though a really, really good and qualified person who ain't rich is ever going to be elected as Pres or VP.  Think that was something the founding fathers even talked about in their Federalist papers and stuff - ya know?

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.3  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

The rich thing has been in play at most levels of elections for decades. Our current president is a billionaire and many of his department heads, past and present are very wealthy. So there is that, ya know.

I'm still wondering why the majority of minorities are dems. Seems very strange considering that our resident experts consider the democratic party are racists.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Kavika @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

I think it's kinda depending on what day of the week it is as to who's gonna play racist.  Hell, in NM, one of the Repubs said we need to change our color.  What he meant, he sez, is that we need to go from Blue to Red (whatever that means) and he's being slammed by the Dems for being racist.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1.5  Dean Moriarty  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.2    4 weeks ago

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very wealthy. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth

 
 
 
Kavika
2.1.6  Kavika   replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.4    4 weeks ago

My question remains regarding the majority of minorities being dems as opposed to many NT member stating that the dem party is racist. 

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    4 weeks ago

In 2016 America elected its first orange President...

 
 
 
The People's Fish
3.1  seeder  The People's Fish  replied to  JBB @3    4 weeks ago

Mighty white of you......

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2  Heartland American  replied to  JBB @3    4 weeks ago

And in 2020 we will re elect him. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.3  It Is ME  replied to  JBB @3    4 weeks ago
In 2016 America elected its first orange President...

Bernie's "WHITE" !

I think Johannesburg heard that one, as loud and proud of it as he portrayed.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    4 weeks ago

Applying progressive "reasoning," it's because Democrats are racists. The candidates are all the proof you need.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

It's not really that weird. The country is still mostly very white. That's not racism. It's just the history of the country's development. So it's not surprising that most of the available experienced politicians are white.

This conversation (which I admit I did not listen to in its entirety) is like a weird mix of identity politics and excessive politically based paranoia (the old "be afraid! be very afraid!). These guys just seems to spit-balling. Or to put it less "fancy," talking out of their asses. In one breath, they suggest that Iowa and New Hampshire are racist because they're so white, but also mention that Obama won Iowa. Did all those racist Iowans take a day off from being racist in 2008?

I really think the Democratic Party would be done a huge favor if candidates and supporters worried less about gender and skin color and just focused on running the country and inspiring its people. If they think a president needs to be black to inspire America, the party is just going to be chasing its tail.

 
 
 
pat wilson
5.1  pat wilson  replied to  Tacos! @5    4 weeks ago
The country is still mostly very white.

Except for those born in 2007 and after. In that group whites are 49.6%.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  pat wilson @5.1    4 weeks ago

Oh, it's definitely changing, for sure. It's been changing for several years. But to get to the point where you've got a bunch or people of color in their 60s (or older) to run the country, is going to take time. Every election we see more and more diversity in the candidate pool. We even got to elect a black president a few years ago. Progress! That doesn't mean we're going to elect a person of color every time. 

Hopefully, we will reach a point one day when it won't matter to people any more.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    4 weeks ago
But to get to the point where you've got a bunch or people of color in their 60s (or older) to run the country, is going to take time. Every election we see more and more diversity in the candidate pool.

Not sure where you came up with such a nonsensical comment. 

The percentage of the US population that is black has been relatively steady since the end of the Civil War.  Which means there have been black people in their 60's for a long ass time. 

Of course, higher education didnt really open for blacks until after the civil rights movement, but even that was 50 or 60 years ago. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
5.1.3  seeder  The People's Fish  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    4 weeks ago

Hello super white man, thank you for white-splaning this for us.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @5.1.3    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    4 weeks ago
Not sure where you came up with

Oh, well let's see if you can work some of it out for yourself.

Of course, higher education didnt really open for blacks until after the civil rights movemen

Yep, that was definitely part of my calculus,

but even that was 50 or 60 years ago

I would guess that far more African Americans attend and graduate from college now than did 50 or 60 years ago.

But you forgot a very important thing. "Diversity" means more than just "black people."

 
 
 
The People's Fish
5.1.6  seeder  The People's Fish  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.4    4 weeks ago

Hello again white person, thank you for your comment.

 
 
 
sixpick
5.1.7  sixpick  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    4 weeks ago
Hopefully, we will reach a point one day when it won't matter to people any more.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Little did he know his dream was just a dream.  There would be people in the future who would judge people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character.  They would be people of all colors who would use skin color to divide people, but differently than he would have ever imagined.  They would call white people who disagreed with them 'racist' and people of color who disagreed with them 'Uncle Toms'.

Yes, it would be nice if skin color didn't matter, but the word racist is such a terrible accusation, its use has proven very effective in accomplishing the agenda of dividing people who don't agree with these people, so they continue to use it to produce slaves on both sides.  Some are slaves to the belief that those who don't agree with them are racist and others are afraid to disagree with these people because of the fear of being called racist.

Then, of course, you have people like me, who really don't give a damn either way.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
But you forgot a very important thing. "Diversity" means more than just "black people."

And you think that somehow helps your argument? 

Frankly, what you said would widely be considered to be racist in and of itself. Probably not on NT though, so you are in the clear. 

 
 
 
The People's Fish
7.1  seeder  The People's Fish  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago

Let's be clear here, you are in no position to call out racism on this forum. A stroll through comment history can be very informative.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  The People's Fish @7.1    4 weeks ago

LOL. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.1    4 weeks ago

Everyone's meta removed from thread. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 weeks ago
And you think that somehow helps your argument?

It clarifies what I was talking about. You thought I was making an argument? Did I say something that you have a problem with?

Frankly, what you said would widely be considered to be racist in and of itself.

Which part?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.3    4 weeks ago
But to get to the point where you've got a bunch or people of color in their 60s (or older) to run the country, is going to take time.

Post that on twitter where a lot of people will see it and see what happens. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.1    4 weeks ago

I’m not on Twitter and I don’t care to be. Meanwhile you keep calling me racist and I expect you to explain yourself or retract your accusation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.2    4 weeks ago

I said your comment about it taking a long time for enough people of color to be in their sixties so they could run the country could be construed as racist.  There is no shortage of people of color in their sixties. 

If you want to restate what you said be my guest. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.3.4  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.3.3    4 weeks ago

No, there isn’t a shortage (whatever that would mean), but they are still a numerical minority and have been for all of our nation’s history. Furthermore, even as the demographics of our country evolve, even more time is required for those minority populations to enjoy higher education and wide involvement in politics.

Therefore, it is not a surprise that most of the candidates for president are white.

All of that is simply by way of observing the historical facts of the numbers. It doesn’t say anything about the people themselves. There is nothing racist in anything I said.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.3.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.3.4    4 weeks ago

More than one-in-five voting members (22%) of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are racial or ethnic minorities, making the 116th Congress the most racially and ethnically diverse in history.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/08/for-the-fifth-time-in-a-row-the-new-congress-is-the-most-racially-and-ethnically-diverse-ever/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

There is TODAY, enough distinguished people of color in America to "run the country".  In government, federal, state and local, in academia, and in the private sector. 

I will accept that Tacos meant no disparagement when he made his comment, and I do not suggest that HE is racist. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @8    4 weeks ago

Thread removed meta.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
8.2  seeder  The People's Fish  replied to  JohnRussell @8    4 weeks ago

There is nothing diverse about your party of rich old white people.

Unless rich old people are a minority group you want to champion.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bbl-1
GregTx
Sean Treacy


23 visitors