Mia Love got the Republican nod at the state convention over two white, male, Mormon native Utahns.
One of her convention opponents, Stephen Sandstrom, proposed an Arizona-style immigration law.
Her other opponent at the convention, Carl Wimmer, was co-founder of the Patrick Henry Caucus, an organization which has as its platform to “reject the position that States’ sovereignty must be subordinate to the federal government. Our goal is to restore and uphold the sovereignty and rights of the individual States as guaranteed by the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution.”
The Utah Republican party chose Mia Love over those two alternate candidates. Now the OP seems to think there is sexism and racism to blame for her loss in the general election? If there is such overarching racism then why didn’t the nod go to one of her white opponents? If they are so sexist then why choose any female candidate?
If the state Republicans are so anti-immigrant then why choose the daughter of immigrants? Love was born in Brooklyn and is a natural born citizen of the US. One of her opponents was pushing a Utah state version of Arizona’s SB-1070.
Love’s general election opponent Jim Matheson was one of the few Democrats who voted against the Affordable Care Act. He has previously won election to the 2nd District six times (since the 2000 election) and with that comes name recognition that Love could not match. Matheson has won election even as his 2nd district voted for Bush for president twice.
Could it be that the other guy wasn’t suggesting the simple elimination of many vitally important federal programs for education, housing, school lunch programs?
She promoted a budget proposal that reduces tax relief for working people by half but left consideration for the super-rich alone, but she wasn’t elected to office because Racism. It’s not like the opinion pages running up to the election had the electorate humming “Love Will Tear Us Apart”, or anything.
Yep. The OP has done a remarkable job of demonstrating how much progress we’ve made in race relations in the last half-century. Still a ways to go, of course, but this story shows just how much progress has been made. Very inspiring!
It is your assertion that this district was favorable to her. Don’t you feel you should have to back up your assertion? Especially since I already showed the whole state’s makeup makes even the most Democratic areas pretty sparse?
10 years in another district. This is a fact. It’s not the same voters. That is a fact. Does it mean that I am dismissing it entirely? No. But you have not shown me why a different district with different voters in past elections is a better indicator than the voting in this election throughout the state.
I think the bad wasn’t that I wasn’t “thoughtful and open-minded” as much as I was able to use your cite to show exactly how Red Utah is. Even the relatively Democratic spots are pretty Red.
Obama still won the state by nearly 50 points. And I conceded that the Democrat was an incumbent.
Yes, thanks for that. I do have to wonder how “extreme” that view of the Black Caucus is among the electorate in Utah. What passes as Standard Operating Procedure within the GOP has often seemed “extreme” to me. Did Matheson’s campaign make a big issue out of how “extreme” his opponent was?
Which means that this newly drawn district was not the more liberal parts of Utah after all! Thanks for the evidence that John Mace wanted!
How many of those people that he defeated were nationally televised stars at the Republican National Convention?
I agree that Love did have some disadvantages. I also agree that to exclude her being black and female amongst them is folly.
We can debate how high up the ladder those disadvantages were compared to others that she had. But the fact that they are even there - and were probably deciding factors (in a close race, why wouldn’t they have been?) - shows that despite the cries of Mormons about how their religion is so tolerant and open than the ghosts of very recent past (and the still-happening with regard to women) will be an obstacle to women and/or blacks who hope to advance in politics in Mormon strongholds such as Utah.
After all: If they can’t lead in their church, how can they lead them as their representative in government?
So, if Matheson runs against a Republican, Mormon, white male in 2014 in this district with these voters and wins, will you shut the fuck up? Because other than that, I don’t see what you want. You’re convinced that there was some combo of sexism/racism in this race. NOBODY else sees that. But, you know what, knock yourself out. You’re a paragon of independent thought and the rest of us are blind. You rock!
No, that’s the evidence I wanted. I wanted a comparison of this new district with the old one he ran in. That’s what matters. If you look at his old district, is almost all of southern Utah. Now, I don’t claim to know about Utah, but that area looks very rural to me. Rural = conservative. The newer district is much smaller and located in central Utah, without all the southern part.
Now, I don’t claim that to be a definitive analysis, but it’s more than you’ve done. Knock yourself out filling in the blanks.
John_Stamos’_Left_Ear, you really have nothing here.
It is possible that there are some in that district that would have trouble voting for either a black man or white woman, let alone a black woman. It is even possible that there are many. But it is also possible that:
incumbents always have an advantage
name recognition means a lot
a man who has won 5 previous elections knows how to campaign effectively and…
that man may have a record in congress he can actually run on.
Information we could really use:
who had the biggest budget? who spent the most?
they had debates? who won?
did you see their ads? which was better?
who did the local papers endorse? Police associations? Fire-fighters? Teacher union? Chamber of Commerce?
The proposition of the OP: The fact that a seemingly popular black female Republican lost to a Democratic opponent in heavily Republican Utah means she was discriminated against because of her race and/or gender.
Competing proposition: The fact that a seemingly popular black female Republican lost to a Democratic opponent in heavily Republican Utah means that she ran against a very popular Democratic incumbent who has huge state-wide name recognition and goodwill, and who was running in a newly created district that contained part of his old district, who nevertheless managed to barely squeak by, and had little to do with her race and/or gender.
In support of the OP’s proposition, the OP offers the following evidence: