So black folks are voting AGAINST black folks? They are judging a candidate by their beliefs? Imagine that.
I’m a liberal Democrat, so no, it’s not frustrating. What’s frustrating is when my allies, like you, don’t acknowledge it. And you don’t see that the mindless idea that only a candidate of the same race of sex can represent someone has actually hurt minorities in the long run, as I explained. Maybe it was a good idea then, but it’s not working out now.
Here’s something interesting and indicative. On CNN’s front page right now, there’s a graphic touting Equal Pay Day.
cite:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160412110749-t1-gfx-gender-pay-gap-large-tease.jpg
It’s a color-code map by state of the average rates of pay for women compared to men. With a few exceptions, the 90%-100% states are the blue states, and the red states are less than that to different degrees.
Wonder what that could mean?
It was so effective that it took 30 years for them to do it. Man, they really played that game well ;). It may have also been a result of effectively nationalizing a Congressional race in response to President Clinton’s raising of tax rates and attempts (albeit unsuccessful) at universal health care, gays in the military, etc.
The GOP may have tried to limit the left leaning black voters in Southern states, but at least those black voters have at least one representative looking out for their interests as opposed to none.
Hence the need for the VRA.
So you are really not understanding this thread at all apparently.
In addition, you do realize the link in the OP cited studies that showed that women representatives advance women’s issues 3 times as much as male representatives right? Hence, “all else being equal” (that phrase again), voting for a woman rep will result in more of a focus on women’s issues.
Well, yes, since reapportionment of the House only happens every ten years, it did take time.
And the VRA was amended in 1982 to strengthen the effect of packing blacks into certain districts.
That too. I didn’t say it was the only factor.
They might be better off with a majority of white liberals looking after their interests though. Not much you can do as a minority inside a minority party. Or better yet, both - more black reps, but not at the expense of the Democratic majority.
I didn’t say VRA wasn’t needed. But are you saying it has all worked out fine?
I understand it fine. You apparently don’t. Start with the title.
Only if you vote based on odds. But since it’s stil possible for a woman to oppose women’s rights and a man to support them, voters usually simply judge each by their positions on the issues and not their gender. Which is not that difficult.
Rights Law Deepens Political Rifts in North Carolina
True, Sgro was appointed to fill out a term because the incumbent died. The principle is the same.
Isn’t it amazing that any day’s news will contain examples that show why you small-minded WMSC’s are losing this argument?
So people who happen to be of the minority will advance issues that are important to that minority that majority individuals may not even consider? How shocking.
Probably means that some innumerate journalist at CNN still believes the pay gap myth. That is embarassing.
Amazing way to stretch things. I’m going to claim that Ronald Reagan’s election directly led to Barack Obama. After all, it takes time. How was it then that there was such a massive change in Congressional makeup in the 1992 election and the 1994 election. Was there a massive increase in majority black districts?
Nope. Bob Dole’s addition to the amendment prevented any fears that a results test to Section 2 would result in any proportional representation in distractions. Litigation increased regarding Section 2 claims after the amendment, which seems to indicate that there was tons of discriminatory effects in district creation which had not been addressed prior (such as multimember districts designed to dilute the black vote).
If anything the increased litigation indicated the need for increasing the voting power of African-Americans, and any changes that resulted were intended for that purpose. Whereas the status quo prior indicated a lack of voting power.
I think a nationwide pre-clearance standard should have been implemented (and I know there was discussion about that in 1982), but aside from that, it worked out quite well.
So apparently you only read the title of the thread. That would explain quite a bit.
Okay, so white women should vote for other white women over male minority candidates, because women are bashed and that’s what matters.
Except that it’s not a myth. Even that article acknowledges that there is still a pay gap.
So are you saying that there is just somehow a higher percentage of pregnant women in the red states?
Gee, I wonder why money needs to be taken out of highways to be put in the general fund?
Real world news. What WMSC posters say. Which to believe? Which to believe?
From your link:
That is embarrassing.
Really? You think that if a political trend takes time, it doesn’t exist?
My claim isn’t just random like yours. There is a strong logical connection.
I didn’t say there were no discriminatory effects. I said the remedy had unintended consequences.
Sure. But voting power and actual political power are different things. Blacks may have increased their representation, but weakened their overall power in the process.
So blacks are doing okay now?
I’m glad I was able to get you back on topic. 
Yes. I’m sorry tired of the claim that the pay gap is a myth. The gap that can’t be explained by normal factors is overestimated a great deal, but it still exists.
Oh please. At this stage, I’m just going to say: cite?
Btw, while you attempt to answer my previous question in the preceding post, recall that the vast majority of flipped seats in 1994 happened OUTSIDE the South, which was subject to pre-clearance requirements by the VRA.
Far better than in 1964.
How? If anything it appears that African-Americans have greater political power now than they did in previous decades.
But wait, there’s more…
Here’s an article on a new book that bears on the sexism issue:
Granted, it’s anecdotal, but there are a lot of anecdotes. And Bates draws some interesting conclusions.
I want to make something clear here, in case it isn’t already. I may be beating one particular drum, but I also agree with and fully subscribe to Exapno’s more general line.
I didn’t say I had a source - it’s my hypothesis. But I’ll bet someone out there has looked into it. I will do a search.
EDIT - took me just a few minutes to find something:
My point was that it’s a valid hypothesis. There’s no question that putting more blacks into certain districts takes them out of neighboring districts, and that this can benefit Republicans. It’s likely the black person representing the “black” district simply replaced a white Democrat, while some neighboring districts that were represented by white Demcorats with the help of black voters switch to the GOP.
I’ll note that the Republicans now routinely sue using the VRA to try to pack more blacks into black districts. They sure seem to know what’s going on.
