Titles like that annoy me. Essentially since when this is the first paragraph:
It’s an enduring contrast in Congress: Minority legislators are much less likely to represent districts where whites constitute a majority of the population than whites are to hold districts where racial minorities comprise the majority.
…and this is the ninth paragraph:
The evidence suggests[*] it may[**] be easier for minority Republicans to attract support from white voters than it is for minority Democrats. Only 14 of the 88 minority members in the House are Republicans. But they are eight of the 15 minority House members holding majority white seats. They especially have an edge in districts that are at least 70 percent white. Of those eight seats held by minority Republicans, six are in districts that are 70 percent or more white.
You see, my party doesn’t actually have a problem electing minority candidates in Republican districts. Our problem is that we need more minority candidates in the first place – which is something that I’ll be the first to say we should work on, but it’s still fundamentally different from the Democrats’ problem. Which is to say, white Democrats get cranky when it comes to electing minority candidates in their district. Heck, they have a real problem electing them in statewide contests.
Which we all know. Alas, articles like the National Journal’s are currently the closest we can get to the mainstream media actually discussing them. And people think that American liberal/progressive culture has no taboos…
Moe Lane (crosspost)