no it isnt,if you only have 2 people you cant have more diversity than 2 different ethnicities, races, genders etc.

That is not diverse, that is just two differences. The republicans have multiple differences so they are more diverse.

We voted in favor of adding Bernie to the SQUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAD!

Now do you see why it's important to know how to measure diversity? ;-)

I was comparing total presidential diversity. The other people who ran (or were running) in the democratic race were not put on many of the measures of diversity because they were all old, white, and rich (O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, etc).

Its important to look at each party's presidential race holistically, including those who ran but did not have enough popularity to win.

Edited 2/19/2016 19:12:50

no i won't vote because i am from britian

I was comparing total presidential diversity. The other people who ran (or were running) in the democratic race were not put on many of the measures of diversity because they were all old, white, and rich (O'Malley, Webb, Chafee, etc).

Its important to look at each party's presidential race holistically, including those who ran but did not have enough popularity to win.

According to http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm, which is the first link I got when I googled 'presidential candidates 2016', there are *at least* 147 people who've expressed they are running or planning to run for President under the Democratic Party, most of them write-in hopefuls. (For comparison, the count would be at least 189 for the Republicans.)

So, by your new 'holistic' standards (even if they didn't have the popularity to win), you would have to go through that list and find out who's 'diverse'.

Do you see why it's important to have a standard way to measure diversity? You're basically just cherry picking your numbers to suit your agenda.

Edited 2/19/2016 20:36:52

The republicans have more people with more ethnic backgrounds, so they are more diverse. That's like saying a school with 40 whites kids, 10 Hispanics , 10 Blacks ,10 Muslims and 10 East Asians is less diverse than the school with 40 blacks and 40 Hispanics.

There is actually a way to quantify this as an actual measure of diversity, you know. (Your example is actually a very good one, by the way.)

According to http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm, which is the first link I got when I googled 'presidential candidates 2016', there are *at least* 147 people who've expressed they are running or planning to run for President under the Democratic Party

Most of these people haven't even been allowed on the ballot in all 50 states because of the qualifications. Sure I could have narrowed my definition of holistic, but I am pretty sure to go through the expanded list would be to expose even more starkly the number of old white and rich men running on the Democratic side.

Question: did you go through the list of Democratic candidates on the URL you linked? A lot of links to old white men no?

Edited 2/19/2016 20:44:00

Most of these people haven't even been allowed on the ballot in all 50 states because of the qualifications. Sure I could have narrowed my definition of holistic, but I am pretty sure to go through the expanded list would be to expose even more starkly the number of old white and rich men running on the Democratic side.

That's a testable hypothesis. Why don't you test it? (See http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testability and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis)

Question: did you go through the list of Democratic candidates on the URL you linked? A lot of links to old white men no?

Why would I? I haven't made any claims about the presidential candidates lists and diversity. My claims are about the parties as wholes. You're the one who made the claim about the candidates. That puts the burden of proof on you, the one making the claim (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof). I'm just pointing out problems with your operational definitions of 'diversity' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition).

Edited 2/19/2016 21:10:14

That's a testable hypothesis. Why don't you test it?

Would you even care if the results proved my point? I doubt it. If I have time I may do the work. For now though, many of the people who commented on the forum agree with the validity of my diversity comparison of those running for the presidential election by party. That's not to dismiss some of your semi-valid concerns, but for the most part there's no need to compare all the no-namers running who'll barely pick up a 100 votes.

Would you even care if the results proved my point? I doubt it.

Do it for your own satisfaction, then. (I would care, a little, but even if you were right about the candidates, it wouldn't contradict my point about the parties as wholes.)

If I were making such a claim, I would be interested to know that I was right. And if it turned out I was wrong, I would be interested in that, too, since I'd be learning something new.

It's science. It doesn't matter what the result is, you're still learning something about reality. And if you find out you're right, you can feel much more confident making this or similar points in debates in the future. And if you're wrong, you'll feel much more confident anyway, because you'll know not to make the same claim again, reducing your chances of your claims being publicly shown to be wrong (which indirectly affects your credibility in public perception).

For now though, many of the people who commented on the forum agree with the validity of my diversity comparison of those running for the presidential election by party.

*sigh* Popularity of opinion is no reliable guide to the truth of said opinion. Argumentum ad Populum, one of the simplest and most common logical fallacies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum).

That's not to dismiss some of your semi-valid concerns, but for the most part there's no need to compare all the no-namers running who'll barely pick up a 100 votes.

I agree. I was bringing that up to make a point that your definitions and choices of measure have so far been pretty arbitrary. If you were trying to propose a major paper or master's thesis in university/college, you'd get the same kind of push-back from your thesis advisor (and he/she would be on your side! They'd just be playing Devil's Advocate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_advocate).

Edited 2/19/2016 22:46:07

If popularity of opinion isn't proof, why do liberals always bring it up when talking of global warming?

If you were trying to propose a major paper or master's thesis in university/college

Hahaha but clearly no one here is trying to propose a major paper or master's thesis via WL...so yeah, no point in comparing the two.

it wouldn't contradict my point about the parties as wholes

To be fair you may be right on this from a numerical standpoint, but that was never what I was advocating for. I was only comparing the diversity within the presidential candidate pools and was exposing that there is a false dichotomy between the Democrat's stance on supporting minority and minority interests, and then elevating minority candidates to high positions in the party from where they can launch presidential bids. Look at the Senate and House leadership for the Democrats...the trends hold true generally speaking (old, white men, rich, and a few women).

Edited 2/19/2016 23:13:53

Hahaha but clearly no one here is trying to propose a major paper or master's thesis via WL...so yeah, no point in comparing the two.

I'm giving you a sneak peak of what might be in your future, and why it might be relevant to our discussion, i.e. the scientific method and peer review.

exposing that there is a false dichotomy between the Democrat's stance on supporting minority and minority interests, and then elevating minority candidates to high positions in the party from where they can launch presidential bids

I think you might mean 'apparent contradiction' rather than 'false dichotomy'. A false dichotomy is when a person says, "It can only be A or B, there's no other option," when in reality, there are other options, such as C. Like, "You're either with us, or against us." In reality, you could also be neither with nor against them, and just be neutral.

Do you have any links to Democrat representatives (senate and congress) and Republican representatives, and their race/religion/ethnicity/gender? I'm very skeptical that the Republican reps are more diverse than the Democrat reps.

If popularity of opinion isn't proof, why do liberals always bring it up when talking of global warming?

Because there's a difference between popular opinion and scientific consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Consensus of experts isn't perfect either (it's still technically a logical fallacy to say, "the consensus is X, therefore X is true"), but it is *far* more reliable than mere popular opinion, especially when those experts are *the* most experienced and knowledgeable experts in the relevant field.

Here's a good article (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/) which has a nice chart showing the 'gap' between what Americans believe and what the top scientists believe (note: this is not quite the same as the 'scientific consensus', as it measures all top scientists, blended together, rather than just the top scientists of the relevant fields). When the chart shows the US public's belief is below 50% and scientists' is significantly above 50%, then this is indicative of where the 'majority' probably hold a false belief. Some examples from the article are: GMOs, animal research, anthropogenic climate change, and a few others that aren't quite so big of a gap.

Another, similar article: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/a-majority-of-americans-question-the-science-of-the-big-bang/360976/

Edited 2/20/2016 06:22:21

Ahh, hahahahahahahaha: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/12/114th-congress-is-most-diverse-ever/

The increasing number of minorities in Congress is due almost entirely to membership changes in the House, where today 85 of 435 (20%) members are non-white, according to CQ Roll Call. In 2001, there were 60 minorities in the House. By comparison, in the Senate, just six of 100 senators now belong to a racial or ethnic minority group, up from three senators in 2001.

The increase in the number of minorities in the House since 2001 has largely come among newly elected Democrats, though Republicans have also made some gains. Since 2001, the number of House Democrats who are minorities increased by 18, from 56 then to 74 now. By comparison, there was an increase of seven representatives among House Republicans over the same period, rising from four then to 11 now.

[Democrats 74, Republicans 11]

Ohh, hohohohohohohoho: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869.pdf

Female Members

A record 108 women (20% of the total membership) serve in the 114th Congress as of January 2015, 7 more than at the beginning of the 113th Congress. Eighty-eight women, including 4 Delegates, serve in the House and 20 in the Senate. Of the 88 women in the House, 65 are Democrats, including 3 of the Delegates, and 23 are Republicans, including 1 Delegate. Of the 20 women in the Senate, 14 are Democrats and 6 are Republicans.

[Democrats 65, Republicans 23]

*wipes tears from eyes* Oh, my sides...

Hey, at least the Republicans are *becoming* more diverse than they used to be, even if they aren't *actually* more diverse than the Democrats, not by a long shot.

---

A neat pie chart from this article (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/breakdown-114th-congress-demographics-gender), based on the data above, appropriately titled "CHART: Actually, Most Of The Diversity In Congress Comes From Democrats": http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/glfam5rxjeqrm1tztmim.jpg

---

Nail in coffin:

To be fair you may be right on this from a numerical standpoint, but that was never what I was advocating for. I was only comparing the diversity within the presidential candidate pools ...

Well, except for when you said this:

The only problem they're facing now is that their party is more and more being led by old white dudes (Dick Durban, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer)

And the reality is that you're just cherry picking 'leadership' positions to suit your agenda. Here are some Democrat leaders who are not white males: Nancy Pelosi (House Minority Leader), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Chair of the DNC, incumbent), Donna Brazile (Chair of the DNC, acting), Tulsi Gabbard (vice-chair of DNC), Maria Durazo (vice chair of DNC), Kyrsten Sinema (chief deputy whip), Diana DeGette (chief deputy whip), John Lewis (senior chief deputy whip), Jan Schakowsky (chief deputy whip), Keith Ellison (chief deputy whip), Terri Sewell (chief deputy whip), Joaquín Castro (chief deputy whip), Patty Murray (Secretary, SDC), Elizabeth Warren (Strategic Policy Advisor, SDC), Willie Wilson (Presidential Candidate for 2016 on ballot in Illinois), Dianne Feinstein (vice chair, Select Committee on Intelligence)

All their "diversity" is stuck in the House of Representatives and they have no chance of getting high enough up on the Democratic White Ladder to get a shot at being in a more powerful office.

As you can see, your claim here is a crock of shit.

Let me put it to you this way: You must have gotten the idea that the Republicans are super-diverse and the Democrats are all old white men from somewhere. Think about it. Wherever you got that idea from ... was a source of false information (and that's putting it mildly). Think about that. Do you really want your mind poisoned by false information?

Demonstrably false information.

---

An interesting article with some points that haven't been raised in this thread yet: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/why_gop_diversity_won_t_matter_to_minority_voters.html

Edited 2/20/2016 11:27:06