Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Midterm elections
Author Message
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #321
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 06:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 05:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 02:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 02:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you're suggesting that an incredibly improbably outcome, that Reps are overwhelmingly selecting male candidates to female candidates is because...

Best qualified? Are you suggesting the Dems nominate more women because the women are better qualified (other than by way of just being women, I mean).

When you talk of selecting, are you talking about the back room politics of selecting candidates, or the voting booth?

In the voting booth, easy. I vote for the conservative, and don't give a flip if either one is this gender or that race.

I'[m never in the smoke filled rooms, I have a hard time thinking the Republicans are saying "We can have either Bob or Karen: let's choose Bob because he is a man", while I have no trouble imagining the same conversation in the Democratic room: "We have Bill or Sally, so obviously we must go with Sally, because she is a woman."

What do you think those conversations sound like?

We need to make sure we're on the same page regarding assumptions.

I assume that if both parties elected the best qualified individuals, one would expect that their nominees would hue closely to the demographics of their supporters, because being from a certain demographic does not mean someone is more or less qualified, correct?

If universities admit only the best qualified applicants, will the composition of their student body hew closely to the demographics of high school graduates?

If companies hire only the best qualified applicants, likewise?

Are we really there yet?

Well, first, university admissions and election nominations aren't exactly a 1:1 comparison, but let's say they are.

Comparing participation rate of women, universities are generally around a 50/50 split for men and women admittance. So in that regard, they are generally reflecting the population, because men and women are equally adept at learning. You generally see discrepancies based on the type of university, like science/engineering heavy universities, which feeds into gender stereotypes that we're still working to break down.

When you look at the admittance of students based on race, you begin to see the effect that culture and/or historical racism have on admitted students. I think you're likely to see a similar effect in politics because, generally, a good politician is a well educated politician, but people are becoming less and less concerned with politician's academic pedigrees, so that will decrease as well.

So you're right, that we're not at the point where race/gender don't matter to a person's opportunity, as you say. So one way to combat that is to advocate for those under-represented people to have the opportunity to go to university, be hired, or be nominated. Right?

Underrepresented? Are there people qualified for admissions being turned away in favor of people less qualified? Unless that is happening, then nobody is underrepresented.

Suffice it to say that I don't agree with quotas as an acceptable form of "advocating".

And if you mean to say that voters are becoming less concerned that their representatives are well-educated, that's horrifying if true.
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2018 08:49 PM by Frizzy Owl.)
11-14-2018 08:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #322
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 08:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 06:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 05:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 02:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Best qualified? Are you suggesting the Dems nominate more women because the women are better qualified (other than by way of just being women, I mean).

When you talk of selecting, are you talking about the back room politics of selecting candidates, or the voting booth?

In the voting booth, easy. I vote for the conservative, and don't give a flip if either one is this gender or that race.

I'[m never in the smoke filled rooms, I have a hard time thinking the Republicans are saying "We can have either Bob or Karen: let's choose Bob because he is a man", while I have no trouble imagining the same conversation in the Democratic room: "We have Bill or Sally, so obviously we must go with Sally, because she is a woman."

What do you think those conversations sound like?

We need to make sure we're on the same page regarding assumptions.

I assume that if both parties elected the best qualified individuals, one would expect that their nominees would hue closely to the demographics of their supporters, because being from a certain demographic does not mean someone is more or less qualified, correct?

If universities admit only the best qualified applicants, will the composition of their student body hew closely to the demographics of high school graduates?

If companies hire only the best qualified applicants, likewise?

Are we really there yet?

Well, first, university admissions and election nominations aren't exactly a 1:1 comparison, but let's say they are.

Comparing participation rate of women, universities are generally around a 50/50 split for men and women admittance. So in that regard, they are generally reflecting the population, because men and women are equally adept at learning. You generally see discrepancies based on the type of university, like science/engineering heavy universities, which feeds into gender stereotypes that we're still working to break down.

When you look at the admittance of students based on race, you begin to see the effect that culture and/or historical racism have on admitted students. I think you're likely to see a similar effect in politics because, generally, a good politician is a well educated politician, but people are becoming less and less concerned with politician's academic pedigrees, so that will decrease as well.

So you're right, that we're not at the point where race/gender don't matter to a person's opportunity, as you say. So one way to combat that is to advocate for those under-represented people to have the opportunity to go to university, be hired, or be nominated. Right?

Underrepresented? Are there people qualified for admissions being turned away in favor of people less qualified? Unless that is happening, then nobody is underrepresented.

Suffice it to say that I don't agree with quotas as an acceptable form of "advocating".

I would assume that in Lad's mind only a Latin(o)(a) can represent a group of Latin(o)(a)s.

Or that the *best* form of representational government, all other things being equal, is one that exactly mirrors the ratios of every discernible subsection possible of society. But aside from that golden goal, no one can seemingly say *why* such racial/sex/gender distinctions are actually needed or deemed to be 'best'.

We are four pages into this **** and I have yet to see a tangible 'good reason' (aside from the goal itself) for this endpoint. Funny that.

That is aside from paeans to 'underrepresented' (a circular construct), and another about the horrors of all the institutional bulwarks that they have to overcome (which, Lad still hasnt answered the question to list all these institutional barriers which he harkened to broadly like a Baptist preacher sermonizing about the power of the dunking.)
11-14-2018 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #323
RE: Midterm elections
Perhaps Republican voters consider a candidate's education and understanding of the issues more important than skin color or gender.
11-14-2018 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #324
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 08:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 06:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 05:12 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 02:57 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Best qualified? Are you suggesting the Dems nominate more women because the women are better qualified (other than by way of just being women, I mean).

When you talk of selecting, are you talking about the back room politics of selecting candidates, or the voting booth?

In the voting booth, easy. I vote for the conservative, and don't give a flip if either one is this gender or that race.

I'[m never in the smoke filled rooms, I have a hard time thinking the Republicans are saying "We can have either Bob or Karen: let's choose Bob because he is a man", while I have no trouble imagining the same conversation in the Democratic room: "We have Bill or Sally, so obviously we must go with Sally, because she is a woman."

What do you think those conversations sound like?

We need to make sure we're on the same page regarding assumptions.

I assume that if both parties elected the best qualified individuals, one would expect that their nominees would hue closely to the demographics of their supporters, because being from a certain demographic does not mean someone is more or less qualified, correct?

If universities admit only the best qualified applicants, will the composition of their student body hew closely to the demographics of high school graduates?

If companies hire only the best qualified applicants, likewise?

Are we really there yet?

Well, first, university admissions and election nominations aren't exactly a 1:1 comparison, but let's say they are.

Comparing participation rate of women, universities are generally around a 50/50 split for men and women admittance. So in that regard, they are generally reflecting the population, because men and women are equally adept at learning. You generally see discrepancies based on the type of university, like science/engineering heavy universities, which feeds into gender stereotypes that we're still working to break down.

When you look at the admittance of students based on race, you begin to see the effect that culture and/or historical racism have on admitted students. I think you're likely to see a similar effect in politics because, generally, a good politician is a well educated politician, but people are becoming less and less concerned with politician's academic pedigrees, so that will decrease as well.

So you're right, that we're not at the point where race/gender don't matter to a person's opportunity, as you say. So one way to combat that is to advocate for those under-represented people to have the opportunity to go to university, be hired, or be nominated. Right?

Underrepresented? Are there people qualified for admissions being turned away in favor of people less qualified? Unless that is happening, then nobody is underrepresented.

Suffice it to say that I don't agree with quotas as an acceptable form of "advocating".

And if you mean to say that voters are becoming less concerned that their representatives are well-educated, that's horrifying if true.

It’s definitely true - people called Obama stupid, and well, he wasn’t. People didn’t care that Bush didn’t have good grades, they wanted to get a beer with him. You disagree with that general statement?

And good universities like Rice have so many qualified applicants that it’s unlikely that students admitted outside of athletics are all relatively equal in terms of their admission. It’s not like we admit ever single 4.0 student, and we certainly admit students who don’t have 4.0’s. I don’t think Rice or other universities have quotas, but they are not afraid to say that they do consider race and socioeconomic status in admission decisions.
11-14-2018 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #325
RE: Midterm elections
Well, "quota" is a harsh term. They make it sound nobler.

Nothing wrong with taking into account tenacity and perseverence in applicants from difficult circumstances. But it goes beyond that...

Obama, Bush, and even Trump are all well-educated. Voters do seem to consistently favor education.
(This post was last modified: 11-14-2018 09:31 PM by Frizzy Owl.)
11-14-2018 09:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #326
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don’t think Rice or other universities have quotas, but they are not afraid to say that they do consider race and socioeconomic status in admission decisions.

The fact that a practice is prevalent in academia is hardly evidence that it is is a good idea, or even a non-racist one.
11-15-2018 12:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #327
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don’t think Rice or other universities have quotas, but they are not afraid to say that they do consider race and socioeconomic status in admission decisions.

And if they do consider race, how does it factor into the decision to admit? Why is one admitted, one not, on the basis of race?

Again, the very basis for the Harvard suit.

Any decision based on race is de facto racist.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2018 12:41 AM by OptimisticOwl.)
11-15-2018 12:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #328
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 09:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s definitely true - people called Obama stupid, and well, he wasn’t.

Obama was certainly educated and articulate (in the conventional senses), but reached consistently poor conclusions.

It is not unreasonable for the public to believe that bad judgment is the sine qua non of stupidity.
11-15-2018 12:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #329
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 05:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  When advocates of demographic diversity in politics start giving one-tenth as much credit to Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, and Ted Cruz as they do to Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, then I will believe that they sincerely value diversity. Until then, it is just a cynical vehicle for leftism.

I see your point in general, but not great examples there.

To the latter you've identified three ceiling breakers. The first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, the first female nominee for POTUS from a major political party, and the first black POTUS.

To the former, Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice, Collin Powell was the first black Secretary of State and Madeleine Albright was the first female SOS, and Octaviano Ambrosio Larrazolo was the first Hispanic Senator (Cruz is the first Hispanic Senator from Texas though).

Granted, my examples were not perfect -- it was an off-the-cuff list of two current Supreme Court justices; two recent Secretaries of State; and two junior Senators who became presidential candidates after very little time in the Senate. (Although among the two Secretaries of State mentioned, I don't think there is much equivalence in intellectual firepower between Rice and Clinton; I'm not sure they are even in the same league.)

But Sotomayor was not the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. By any reasonable measure, that title (for what it's worth) belongs to the great Benjamin Cardozo, an eminent New York state jurist who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hoover.

Of course, there are leftists who would claim that Cardozo does not "count" as a Hispanic -- but "Beto" O'Rourke does.
11-15-2018 01:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #330
RE: Midterm elections
(11-15-2018 01:06 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 05:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  When advocates of demographic diversity in politics start giving one-tenth as much credit to Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, and Ted Cruz as they do to Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, then I will believe that they sincerely value diversity. Until then, it is just a cynical vehicle for leftism.

I see your point in general, but not great examples there.

To the latter you've identified three ceiling breakers. The first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, the first female nominee for POTUS from a major political party, and the first black POTUS.

To the former, Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice, Collin Powell was the first black Secretary of State and Madeleine Albright was the first female SOS, and Octaviano Ambrosio Larrazolo was the first Hispanic Senator (Cruz is the first Hispanic Senator from Texas though).

Granted, my examples were not perfect -- it was an off-the-cuff list of two current Supreme Court justices; two recent Secretaries of State; and two junior Senators who became presidential candidates after very little time in the Senate. (Although among the two Secretaries of State mentioned, I don't think there is much equivalence in intellectual firepower between Rice and Clinton; I'm not sure they are even in the same league.)

But Sotomayor was not the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. By any reasonable measure, that title (for what it's worth) belongs to the great Benjamin Cardozo, an eminent New York state jurist who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hoover.

Of course, there are leftists who would claim that Cardozo does not "count" as a Hispanic -- but "Beto" O'Rourke does.

Interesting. Multiple articles claim Sotomayor was the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Where was Cardozo’s family from?
11-15-2018 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,642
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #331
RE: Midterm elections
(11-14-2018 09:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, "quota" is a harsh term. They make it sound nobler.

Nothing wrong with taking into account tenacity and perseverence in applicants from difficult circumstances. But it goes beyond that...

Obama, Bush, and even Trump are all well-educated. Voters do seem to consistently favor education.

Alright, try Rick Perry.
11-15-2018 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #332
RE: Midterm elections
(11-15-2018 09:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 09:26 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Well, "quota" is a harsh term. They make it sound nobler.

Nothing wrong with taking into account tenacity and perseverence in applicants from difficult circumstances. But it goes beyond that...

Obama, Bush, and even Trump are all well-educated. Voters do seem to consistently favor education.

Alright, try Rick Perry.

And Maxine Waters
11-15-2018 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #333
RE: Midterm elections
You can certainly find some exceptions to Ivy League, law school, etc. type educations.

Not sure what your point is, since exceptions are just that - exceptions.
11-15-2018 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #334
RE: Midterm elections
(11-15-2018 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 01:06 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  But Sotomayor was not the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. By any reasonable measure, that title (for what it's worth) belongs to the great Benjamin Cardozo, an eminent New York state jurist who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hoover.

Of course, there are leftists who would claim that Cardozo does not "count" as a Hispanic -- but "Beto" O'Rourke does.

Interesting. Multiple articles claim Sotomayor was the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Where was Cardozo’s family from?

Well, that quickly gets into the quagmire of leftist identity-parsing. By any logical understanding, Hispanic indicates origins in the region of Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula)* or its diaspora. In practice, most people seem to use a Spanish-sounding surname as a simplistic proxy. Cardozo, whose family origins were in Portugal, qualifies on both counts, even though no one (least of all himself) thought of it at the time.

But since Cardozo doesn't fit the grievance industry's preferred narrative of "everything was evil until just a few years ago", there is a deliberate campaign among the industry to use agenda-based definitions to discount him.

My hometown of New Orleans was a Spanish colony for more years than it was French, and had many settlers from Spain and from Spain's other colonies (including a distinctive group known as Islenos, from the Canary Islands). Those families have been in New Orleans for hundreds of years (they were called Creoles in most of the 18th and 19th centuries), and many have held important positions in business, government, and the social elite. There are streets named after some of them. But there are modern identitarians who claim that these proud families are not Hispanic.


*Similarly, by any logical understanding, Anatolian Turks are Asian.
11-15-2018 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #335
RE: Midterm elections
(11-15-2018 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 01:06 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 06:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-14-2018 05:55 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  When advocates of demographic diversity in politics start giving one-tenth as much credit to Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, and Ted Cruz as they do to Sonia Sotomayor, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, then I will believe that they sincerely value diversity. Until then, it is just a cynical vehicle for leftism.

I see your point in general, but not great examples there.

To the latter you've identified three ceiling breakers. The first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, the first female nominee for POTUS from a major political party, and the first black POTUS.

To the former, Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice, Collin Powell was the first black Secretary of State and Madeleine Albright was the first female SOS, and Octaviano Ambrosio Larrazolo was the first Hispanic Senator (Cruz is the first Hispanic Senator from Texas though).

Granted, my examples were not perfect -- it was an off-the-cuff list of two current Supreme Court justices; two recent Secretaries of State; and two junior Senators who became presidential candidates after very little time in the Senate. (Although among the two Secretaries of State mentioned, I don't think there is much equivalence in intellectual firepower between Rice and Clinton; I'm not sure they are even in the same league.)

But Sotomayor was not the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. By any reasonable measure, that title (for what it's worth) belongs to the great Benjamin Cardozo, an eminent New York state jurist who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hoover.

Of course, there are leftists who would claim that Cardozo does not "count" as a Hispanic -- but "Beto" O'Rourke does.

Interesting. Multiple articles claim Sotomayor was the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Where was Cardozo’s family from?

Ah, the fallacy of depending on published sources to be accurate...
11-15-2018 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #336
RE: Midterm elections
Quote:Enthusiastic Democrats can often be heard talking about how Texas is turning purple and maybe even blue. Professional strategists have mostly scoffed at this idea — after all, Donald Trump won Texas by more than 800,000 votes in 2016. But if President Trump decides to seek a second term — and he has said many times that he intends to — he can no longer count on winning Texas’s 38 Electoral College votes.

Quote:Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice, described this development in an email:

Donald Trump made the most polarizing and dogmatic conservatives in Texas much more vulnerable, with a significant number of regular Republican voters strongly associating these candidates with Trump, and as a result either voting for their Democratic rival, not voting in that race, or casting a protest vote for the Libertarian.

Less polarizing and less dogmatic conservative Republicans — Governor Greg Abbott, Glenn Hegar, the comptroller and George P. Bush, the land commissioner — won by margins (on average, 11.9 percent), that, according to Jones, “double or triple that of the more polarizing and dogmatic conservative Republicans.” Those farther to the extreme right — the lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, the attorney general, Ken Paxton and Sid Miller, the agricultural commissioner, won by an average of 4.9 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/opini...-beto.html
11-15-2018 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frizzy Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,334
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 54
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #337
RE: Midterm elections
(11-15-2018 12:58 PM)At Ease Wrote:  
Quote:Enthusiastic Democrats can often be heard talking about how Texas is turning purple and maybe even blue. Professional strategists have mostly scoffed at this idea — after all, Donald Trump won Texas by more than 800,000 votes in 2016. But if President Trump decides to seek a second term — and he has said many times that he intends to — he can no longer count on winning Texas’s 38 Electoral College votes.

Quote:Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice, described this development in an email:

Donald Trump made the most polarizing and dogmatic conservatives in Texas much more vulnerable, with a significant number of regular Republican voters strongly associating these candidates with Trump, and as a result either voting for their Democratic rival, not voting in that race, or casting a protest vote for the Libertarian.

Less polarizing and less dogmatic conservative Republicans — Governor Greg Abbott, Glenn Hegar, the comptroller and George P. Bush, the land commissioner — won by margins (on average, 11.9 percent), that, according to Jones, “double or triple that of the more polarizing and dogmatic conservative Republicans.” Those farther to the extreme right — the lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, the attorney general, Ken Paxton and Sid Miller, the agricultural commissioner, won by an average of 4.9 percent.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/15/opini...-beto.html

Yay Blue Team!
11-15-2018 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #338
RE: Midterm elections
(11-15-2018 11:46 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(11-15-2018 01:06 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  But Sotomayor was not the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. By any reasonable measure, that title (for what it's worth) belongs to the great Benjamin Cardozo, an eminent New York state jurist who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Hoover.

Of course, there are leftists who would claim that Cardozo does not "count" as a Hispanic -- but "Beto" O'Rourke does.

Interesting. Multiple articles claim Sotomayor was the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Where was Cardozo’s family from?

Well, that quickly gets into the quagmire of leftist identity-parsing.

You are acting like nothing in the last 4-5 pages is.

The entire issue can be summed up into one item --- another massive difference between progressives/leftists and libertarian/conservatives.

On one hand you have those that look at the issue based on 'equality of results'. In that corner you have people screaming at the top of their lungs about how unfair the result is. Hell, even in this thread we have a dude that ran a billion gd series of 100 coin flips to prove how 'unequal' the results were.

In the other corner, you have the viewpoint of 'equality of access'. For all the caterwauling about the horrific 'institutional blocks' that apparently still exist all across and pervasively within this country --- look, no one with an operating brain cell can claim that the equality of access isn't there.

I *would* be of a different mind if you were even using the 1970's as an example -- no doubt the institutional blocks were there. 50 fing years ago..... half a century.... The problem is that the institutional left wants their minions to believe that this is still the United States of pre-1965. The simple fing fact is that just isnt so.

The El Paso of 1970 would *never* have a female or Hispanic city leader. Nowdays, you have to change your name to Beto to be elected as a caucasian. Not stating this as a grumpy heterosexual white guy (the worst of the fing worst according to everything I guess now days), as El Paso has *every* right to elect *whomever* they wish.

But it is a pretty fing awesome indictment of the world of 'institutional resistance' that the left clings so fiercely to.

*Nothing* prevents *anyone* from running for whatever office they want in this country. The equality of access is beyond reproach. The equality of results (what the dogma of the progressive is) still mandates 'fierce action'.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2018 01:34 PM by tanqtonic.)
11-15-2018 01:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,540
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #339
RE: Midterm elections
I think Tanq has hit the nail on the head.

Democrats want equality of outcome.
Conservatives want equality of access.


At the World Series of Poker last year, 93% of the players were men. The leftists would indicate that shows that in some way, women were denied access.

BUT: All that is needed to play is to be 21 years old and pay the entry fee. Lad could play. FBO could play. JAAO could play. And so could all their wives, girl friends, mothers and sisters. But they don't. The equality of access is there, but the equality of outcomes is not.

Because they don't WANT to. I have my theories why women don't want to play competitive, top level tournament poker. But that they don't in any great numbers is a fact. It is not a committee of old white men telling them they cannot play, it is their choice.

We have no reason to believe that 50% of the people who WANT to run for office are female. If we start out with only, say, only 10-20% (est) of the people who want to run being female, hard to end up with 50% of those elected being female.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2018 04:01 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
11-15-2018 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
At Ease Offline
Banned

Posts: 17,134
Joined: Jun 2005
I Root For: The Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #340
RE: Midterm elections
11-15-2018 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.