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

Republicans *do* choose who gets to have a chance at the nomination, with dollars, support, and votes.

You're implying here that Republican voters and interest-groups and donors are wasting their money and votes on people they don't really support in order to change the national paradigm of the Republican Party and seem more diverse. Wow that's one big conspiracy theory. This is just a subjective talking-point to appease Democrats, and I doubt that voters and donors are wasting their time if they don't genuinely support the candidates. If you have evidence of this illusion, link me.

only 1 or 2 have any shot at winning the general election

You know how many latinos have a shot at winning the general election in the Democratic Party? I have a hint: the number as a word starts with "z" and ends with "ero". I rest my case.

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)?

"Sarah Palin is a nut job. No need to say anything more. She and Trump share one thing in common - illiteracy when they speak. Worst VP candidate since Dan Quayle." - JaiBharat (https://www.warlight.net/Forum/132504-trump-busted)

That was an actual quote I made. Again you're being deceptive. I don't choose the VP nomination and neither do Republican voters. Its usually left to the Presidential Nominee. Do I think she was qualified? Yes, she was the governor of Alaska and that automatically makes here "qualified" (since this is a subjective term that has no real definition in the political sphere). Do I think she should have been chosen? No. There was plenty of better female VP picks. I actually have one off the top of my head: Condolezza Rice (yes she was a mushy Republican, but more educated than Palin and fits well with McCain running as a moderate).

Edited 2/15/2016 17:22:43

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.

Then by that definition there is no "real" diversity in the Democrat party either. The Democrats have quite literally made careers out of pandering to minority groups. Never mind that they don't keep most their promises, never mind that many ethnic minorities are still in the same/a similar situation they've been in for awhile. Just blame the evil GOP and keep giving more false hope. "Diversity" is just a buzz word for the Democrats to gain more votes with, same goes for Republicans.

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

Yes, this ONE pick will settle the entire question for all time.

Yes, Republicans *do* choose who gets to have a chance at the nomination, with dollars, support, and votes.

As does every political party in existence. What's your point?

Do you seriously believe that Sarah Palin was *actually* decently qualified to hold the position of President of the US

I think Jai summed this one up pretty well. "Qualified" is heavily subjective when it comes to politics. Palin, by legal definition, was eligible for the job. However, you could have a 12 hour debate drawing arbitrary lines about what makes a politician truly qualified or not.

For the record, no, I don't think Palin would have made a good leader. However, the extent to which the Left uses her as a punching bag has gotten a bit ridiculous and is becoming rather lame at this point.

and sign that the Republicans couldn't into real diversity if they tried?

Please define "real diversity". Do only minority people who agree with your specific ideology count towards this magical definition of diversity?

That's why it's such a laugh to read some of you guys trying to say the exact opposite of reality

I'm sorry, but your personal worldview does not substitute as reality.

Edited 2/15/2016 18:23:30

Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.

keep in mind that what you call "extemist left", "borderling socialist", would actually be considered a pretty mainstream candidate in most of Europe. It gives you perspective on where american politics actually stand in the political spectrum, wich is pretty far to the right of every other developped democracies. The thing is we wouldn't even have a candidate like Bernie in Europe, because we already have a public funding of education, healthcare and elections. There is no perfect system and it varies from country to country. But no-one in France for example, no matter from what end of the political spectrum, would even try to overturn these social advances. It's like women's right to vote, or paid vacations, it is just comon sense now. I'm sure americans will come to it in time.

Yes, we should all try to be like Europe - how did that work out in Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greece for the economy, and everywhere for rape rates?

America has always been different from Europe - and we have almost always been better in most aspects

keep in mind that what you call "extemist left", "borderling socialist", would actually be considered a pretty mainstream candidate in most of Europe. It gives you perspective on where american politics actually stand in the political spectrum, wich is pretty far to the right of every other developped democracies.

I'm confused about what the point of this comment is when discussing minority representation in the Republican and Democratic parties?

Western Europe is far-left...cool beans...we already knew that. That should have no impact on America though, since the point of American government is not to become more European (unless you believe that...which is cultural imperialism).

Second, when discussing far-right conservatism in developed democracies Europeans seem to selectively forget Israel (ruled by Likud, Shas, Kulanu, Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism), South Korea (governed by the Saenuri Party and the New Right), Hungary (ruled by Orban's Fidesz Party), Russia (who's Duma is controlled by center-right United Russia and far-right LDPR), and Singapore (governed by Lee Hsien Loong's People's Action Party). I could also throw in Australia (which has one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world), Poland, Ukraine (the Poroshenko government is literally supported by neo-nazis and no one even comes close to that in the Republican Party), and other eastern european governments.

Edited 2/15/2016 20:01:20

+1 JaiBharat

How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me.

Because it's the same base belief in a "great cause": that your ideas are perfect and thus everyone else must be incorrect, regardless of facts, logic, or reality.

ANY extreme is bad. Too many carrots will make you sick.

Second, when discussing far-right conservatism in developed democracies Europeans seem to selectively forget Israel (ruled by Likud, Shas, Kulanu, Jewish Home, and United Torah Judaism), South Korea (governed by the Saenuri Party and the New Right), Hungary (ruled by Orban's Fidesz Party), Russia (who's Duma is controlled by center-right United Russia and far-right LDPR), and Singapore (governed by Lee Hsien Loong's People's Action Party). I could also throw in Australia (which has one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world), Poland, Ukraine (the Poroshenko government is literally supported by neo-nazis and no one even comes close to that in the Republican Party), and other eastern european governments.

+0,5. I don't think of Ukraine as "developed". Other examples: Lebanon (March 8 Alliance), Morocco (Justice and Development+National Independent Rally+Popular Movement), Kazakhstan (Glowing Homeland Democratic Folk), Macedonia (IMRODPMNU), Latvia (Union+Union of Greens and Farmers+National Alliance), Ireland (Irish Family).

Edited 2/16/2016 01:45:16