So in response to my post how dominant white males are as elected
Republican members of Congress, I got this reply:
"Only 2% of black people are republican so this makes sense right? Try to turn this into a racist thing?"
Because white people can’t vote for black candidates? Or, let’s say, men can’t vote for women?
#How to not use statistics intelligently
I don’t want to reflexively back your probably-dumb interlocutor—but the statement can’t be dismissed quite that easily. Before candidates can be elected you’ve got to recruit them. If your political party is mostly white men, that’s your candidate pool.
Then you have the problem that basically all politics are identity politics. White people can vote for black candidates. But … for some reason a party disproportionately composed of white dudes elects an awful lot of white dudes.
I don’t think there’s any need to “try to turn this into a racist thing.” Maybe the disproportionate racial makeup of the Republican Party is a coincidence?
Politicalprof: ehh. I think you have perhaps conflated the broader membership of the Republican Party among voters with the membership of the Republican Party serving in Congress. There is no way the demographics of the Republican Party are 98% white males among Republican voters even as it is mostly white males in Congress.
It is certainly the case the Republicans skew white and male even among voters. But that’s not all there is.
Plus, the Democrats used to have the same problem, with the additional fact that they were pretty much a Southern-only party. Then, with some remarkable policy changes, their demographic makeup shifted in turn.
In 2012 Lindsay Graham noted that Republicans aren’t producing enough “angry white guys” to survive in the long term. The scary part for them is that little appears to be changing in 2014.