Yeah, the dems have people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They are more interested in diversity hires etc than putting forth the best.
Ummmmm...........These people are still voted in. Hard to call that a 'diversity hire'.
People are voting in the people they think are going to best represent them given the choices they have, which are of course not always the best.
I don't necessarily think it's fair to say that the extremely disproportionate % of white male Republican Senators and Congressmen is proof of racism or gender bias. But I do think it is something the Republican party is going to have to address at some point.
A Republican President has won the popular vote just once in the last 25 years. In these most recent House and Senate elections, Democrats obtained north of 10 million more votes than Republicans. Now a lot of that can be put down to the historical propensity of the US to prefer checks and balances against the President. But the increasingly cold, mathematical reality of the matter now is that the
electoral map, not the collective will of the people, will be what Republicans depend on to maintain power. While the electoral maps will not likely change enormously over the next 20 years, the demographics of the US, and where those people are going to live, will.
This will be more important in Presidential races than House and Senate races initially, as Republicans do generally end up with more votes overall when they take back seats. But they simply are not going to be able to maintain relevance indefinitely if the demographic make-up of their candidates does not begin to more closely approximate the changing demographic of the country. If the US was even in the top 10 of nations in terms of voter turnout (70% or more) Republicans would be well and truly fucked IMO.
