Bookman: Georgia Demographics

January 29, 2013 20:12 pm

by Bridget Cantrell · 37 comments

Lemme take you back, Sesame Streeters:  Three of these things belong together.  Three of these things are kinda the same.  Can you tell which thing is doing it’s own thing?  Now it’s time to play our game. … it’s time to play our gaaame.

Even Big Bird can get this one kiddos.  Jay Bookman has a pretty great visual.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, here’s what Georgia looks like, broken down demographically:

Male, 48.9 percent ; Female, 51.1 percent

White non-Hispanic, 55.5 percent ; Black, 31 percent ; Hispanic or Latino, 9.1 percent ; Asian, 3.4 percent ; Under age 40: 56.7 percent

Here is what the Georgia Senate’s Republican majority caucus looks like:

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 29, 2013 at 8:35 pm

I don’t see what the problem is. That picture of the Georgia Senate Republican majority caucus looks like a pretty fair cross-representation of the state’s population to me.

Except for the one woman in the picture, of course…Kind of makes them look like they’re putting too much of a completely unnecessary over-emphasis on diversity.

(For the humor-impaired, I’m being facetious)

Nonchalant January 29, 2013 at 9:10 pm

If that is who local voters put in, that is who local voters put in. Are you saying the voters of Georgia have no right to send a white male if they wish? They certainly sem to have wished to, and I am not aware of any Justice Department investigations via the 1964 Voting Rights Act, so no foul play has occurred. It is not the job of local citizens to meet someone else’s desire for quotas or proportionality when it comes to choosing *their* representative. It’s their choice, and theirs alone. No one is asking you or Jay Bookman to vote for these individuals, if you are not of that district. They certainly don’t have to meet anyone else’s expectations.

As to the makeup–If our African-American and Latino friends wish to segregate themselves in the Democratic camp, it is not anyone else’s job to go beg them to come out. They presumably are voting for the principles they believe in. I would hope so, and that they are not just voting out of blind factionalism, in an unthinkng way. I would hope they are thinking. I personally do not believe in the principles they voted for, but do not think of them for voting theirs. Does that make me wrong?

It seems to me that others are free to vote Republican principles if they choose, and they are gladly welcomed if they do. No one is going to go begging, nor will doors be shut in faces. Far from it. If that is that is what qualifies for being considered “unfriendly”, then some folks need to be a little less….proud (heh).

If Jay Bookman decides that lack of such other group voting makes Republican principles invalid, that then means he is saying one group of voters is always right, that lack of their participation makes one automatically wrong. I do not agree. I do not think I am always right, I definitely do not think Jay Bookman always right, or even ever right, I certainly do not grant infallibility to anyone else, or group. I do not think his logic would go very far in a debate, nor pass a statistical test. “Lack of X does not mean Y is invalid”, that sort of thing. And that to me seems to be the only argument he has. Perhaps I am wrong. Or perhaps he is just Mike Luckovich in disguise, going for the partisan jugular just because his faction needs it. Sad, if so.

I will say this, though…if one absolutely wishes to judge levels of righteousness between one group and another (and I don’t), well, in that case, we should probably start breaking out some socioeconomic indicators to see which of Georgia’s groups was more squared away, and thus should be listened to above all as the voice of sanity and reason. But I’d rather not, for many reasons, not the least of which is because I’m not bean-counting. That I leave to others. But I do have a good feel for which side actually…but never mind. Forget I brought it up.

What was the veteran and active-duty vote split? I admit I do not know. Was it different, statistically speaking, from a straight demographic breakdown?

Finally, I am represented at both state and national level by African-Americans. Since they do not look like me, is that wrong? Apparently so. Or, in the new trendy aristocracy of black, brown, and Progressive, am I just supposed to know my place, and not get uppity? My guess is…

Rick Day January 29, 2013 at 11:21 pm

Ah but what if white candidates were the only one presented as a viable option? This does limit the choices. What we are seeing in that photo is a result of 160 years of Institutional segregation on a financial and physical level against anyone not white and Christian.

Don’t believe me? I bet you an internet that every person in those photos are also self-professed Christians.

All of them: White. Male. Christian. And you DON’T HAVE an issue with how things have turned out? You defend this as “OK”? Lack of diversity is “OK” because Big Daddy will take care of the slaves?

*shakes head* so sad…

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 6:11 am

Replying to Rick Day, about Big Daddy taking care of the slaves:

The era of Progressive rule is a generation away in Georgia. You’ll have to wait.

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 6:20 am

And to be clear by “slaves” I mean us. All of us. Good little subjects doing what we are told for the common good. With our little hierarchies of race–got to get back, get revenge, you know.

I submit, for general consideration, that automatically disqualifying a group solely because they are apparently the only ones who will believe in a value–disqualification not because one has an argument with the value, but one has an argument against that group, perhaps a racial argument–I believe there are words for that.

Naturally, if we ate going to adopt thevBookman/Day standard, we can now safely never again pay attention to the NAACP.

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 6:22 am

“Are”, not “ate”. Apologies.

And yes, we will go there. I have no issues being chased away, hounded, removed from polite society. I simply will not contribute to that society.

Fights on.

Napoleon January 30, 2013 at 11:16 am

All of them? Even Renee Unterman (who I also believe is Jewish)?

Nonchalant January 29, 2013 at 9:26 pm

As an update–I have no doubts tribalism will be alive and well come the great demographic sweep-thru. That has made me start thinking of future arrangements, while still at a time when the cost of taking alternative paths is trivial.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 29, 2013 at 9:39 pm

Like many a Republican over the past decade or so, Bridget sounds like she is getting either A) extremely-frustrated or B) outright disillusioned with the Republican Party.

If she ever gets to the point where she feels that she is totally fed-up with the GOP, I hope that she decides to become a political Independent rather than flipping and becoming a Democrat.

Bob Loblaw January 29, 2013 at 9:48 pm

Or, she can be stubborn, offensive to those with opposing views and influence only those already in agreement with her position, which was resoundingly defeated by the voters in the last General Election. Hmmm.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 29, 2013 at 11:11 pm

Is what you REALLY mean is that anyone who does not agree with your point-of-view is being stubborn and offensive to those with opposing views and is influencing only those already in agreement with their position?

Also, winning 26 states and only 51% of the vote is NOT a resounding victory. Simple math reveals that getting 26 states and 51% of the vote means that 24 STATES and 49 PERCENT of voters, or just slightly less than HALF OF THE NATION strongly disagrees with you as 26 states and 51% of the vote is NOT a mandate.

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 6:25 am

Certainly you have sent that message to the White House, yes?

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 30, 2013 at 7:36 am

The White House doesn’t care as Obama and the ‘Crats are out to go for the political kill and finish off Republicans if they can.

It looks to be a very good thing that Republicans gerrymandered those House districts to keep them competitive as that is likely one of the only things that is acting as a counterbalance to the ‘Crats ambition of advancing a far-left social agenda through one-party rule.

Daddy Got A Gun January 30, 2013 at 7:45 am

Obama better hurry if he’s going to beat John McAmnesty and his boy wonder Lucy Graham in destroying the GOP

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 12:42 pm

Gerrymandering? How many of the Democratic seats are because illegal aliens are included in apportionment?

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 30, 2013 at 4:34 pm

“Gerrymandering? How many of the Democratic seats are because illegal aliens are included in apportionment?”

Hey, politics ain’t beanbag…Gerrymandering is the way the game is played, no matter who’s in charge, Democrat or Republican.
Just look here in Georgia where Democrats (seemingly quite successfully at times) gerrymandered Republicans out of existence for about 140 years and Republicans have returned the favor after taking control for the first time in the post-Civil War era.

And of course many Democrat seats are illegal because of illegal aliens, especially in places where Democrats dominate like on the West Coast and in the Northeast.
It’s just that right now, Republicans in red and purple states seem to be doing a much better job at playing the gerrymandering game than Democrats in blue and purple states are and, by the looks of what is going on in Washington with the White House and the Democrats attempting to take the country hard-left, it’s a good thing, too or there would likely be nothing standing in Obama’s way.

Mike Hassinger January 29, 2013 at 9:42 pm

So much stupid it just burns. For the record, among active voters under 40 who participate in primaries in Georgia, 19% are African American, 73% are white, 0.5% are Asian, and 0.7% are Hispanic. (Doesn’t = 100% because of rounding and omitting the “other” and “unknown” categories.) 53.9% of all voters in this category are female, 46.1% are male.
So comparing the population at large to a body of elected officials is like comparing an apple tree to an apple. It’s just weapons-grade stupidity, which is what I would expect from Bookman.

The offensive part is the implication that racial and/or gender identity must trump representation. How could anyone who doesn’t look like me represent me? If I am a white male, I can’t live in DeKalb County where my State Senator is younger than I, my State Representative is a woman, or my County Commissioner is an African American, or my School Board rep is anything other than my age, race and gender. That is the insidious, corrosive nature of identity politics -and it is evil.

Rick Day January 29, 2013 at 11:13 pm

You. Can’t. Play. The. Race. Card. Whitey. Offended? At what? look at the G-D photo, dude!

LOOK AT IT. This is a PROBLEM. Why? Because everyone of those shining pink faces has MONEY behind them. The money keeps the white power in place. Every one of those pinks has the material support of the Patriarchal Status Quo. So don’t go all “will of the voter” BS. In GA the man with the money gets the seat because they get to slam their opponent (“Snuggles?”) more in public.

Frankly, I’m offended that you are offended. Why are YOU offended, white boy? You got the power.

Forget race, then. What about the GENDER inequality? Perhaps you are having issues with finding quality candidates that will look their fellow females in the eye and say “God would rather see you die than abort your baby. So vote for me :D”

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 6:41 am

One must recall that this is a selective montage, it does not include the Democratic caucus. And that brings up this point–

If other demographics do not wish to vote for classic liberty, classic liberalism, even in those areas where they have a majority of their own, that is a sadness, but it is not an indictment of the principles of classic liberalism, or classic liberty.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 30, 2013 at 8:04 am

“One must recall that this is a selective montage, it does not include the Democratic caucus.”

…But no one cares about what the Georgia Democrat caucus looks like as they’ve got virtually no political power, organization or resources at the statewide level. None. Zilda. Zelch. (Except, of course, for John Barrow, the last remaining white Democrat in the South)

The Georgia Democrat Legislative Caucus might-as-well be the Mickey Mouse Club, the only difference is that the Mickey Mouse Club is much more popular as at least the public seems to be aware of the existence of the Mickey Mouse Club.

Heck, as of late, Georgia Democrats have resorted to a strategy of making desperate periodic appearances on television (if nothing else is going on that day and the media has nothing better to do) just to let people know that Democrats still actually exist as a party in Georgia.

The only reason why Bridget probably posted this montage taken of Georgia Senate Republican leadership is because she’s been talking as if she has grown disillusioned of the Georgia GOP being only a sausage party when it comes to leadership.

The only reason why Jay Bookman posted the montage in the AJC is because he hates Republicans with a passion and is counting down the days until the date he thinks that the Georgia GOP will be overtaken by the state’s rapidly-changing racial demographics, which already look strangely similar to that of Democrat-dominated Maryland.

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 12:46 pm

I’m sure Jay can talk about the crazy crackers on the right, like they do on MSNBC.

As far as powerlessness due to democratic processes–when the Democrats of Georgia tell their President he needs to honor the idea that a majority in the House of Representatives means something, I’ll be much more sympathetic. I do not believe in pay to play, I do not believe in statecraft left by the door just because one is not of the proper party. In fact, I don’t like parties. But–others do. They don’t have the strength, and what they are really saying is that we demand you listen to us when we are out of power when we have no intention of doing the same for you when the situation is reversed.

No thanks.

Baker January 30, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Bridget Cantrell – 2014 Ga Sen. District 32 (? maybe 33)

Rick Day January 29, 2013 at 11:15 pm

This is what the face of Institutional Racism looks like. And from some of the comments, it is making a few people uncomfortable with this inconvenient fact.

Great post!

Mike Hassinger January 29, 2013 at 11:19 pm

As I said, identity politics is insidious and evil. And here’s Rick Day to prove me right.

Rick Day January 29, 2013 at 11:25 pm

Right. Let’s leave pesky identified humans out of the equation and make politics as dry and broad as economics. Because what do people have to do with government and power?

Mike Hassinger January 30, 2013 at 4:58 pm

I have a dream that one day live I will live in a nation where I will not be judged by the color of my skin but by the content of my character. And on that day that I may be free of racists like Rick Day.

Baker January 30, 2013 at 9:04 pm

Some day Mike. Some day….

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 6:09 am

Can we get a photo montage of the AJC’s various columnists and bloggers? Thanks.

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 6:30 am

Syndicated columnists, too.

novicegirl January 30, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Good point, let’s take a look at the 4th branch of government. Bookman is being very hypocritical on this one, take a look at the opinion writers page for the AJC: http://www.ajc.com/s/opinion/

Perhaps Jay should resign from the AJC to make room for a black female, since they ran the previous one out of Atlanta.

Mike Hassinger January 30, 2013 at 4:55 pm

Well, I can’t get this image to post in the comments but it’s worth looking at the diversity of the editorial board of the New York Times:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/i-would-never-be-so-insulting-as-to-accuse-the-ny-times-of-tokenism/
Keep in mind, that board is NOT selected by an outside group (like voters) but selected by the owners of the NYT.
What a bunch of racists.

Daniel N. Adams January 30, 2013 at 12:51 pm

So,… a decade or two ago, when the Dems were in charge… this montage looked totally different?

novicegirl January 30, 2013 at 1:19 pm

On another note, there is more than one Senator who needs to update their photo. Perhaps the ethics bill should be amended to ban high school yearbook photos.

Nonchalant January 30, 2013 at 1:24 pm

Precisely. But it was the “proper” faction, working in the “correct” direction, so all was good. for that moment in time.

I did have this thought last night–how many of the above in the caucus have their roots in the Democratic party but switched (this includes support bases), and how many have been GOP through and through, including back in the day when it didn’t bring advantages. I don’t know the percentages off the top of my head.

Not everybody in this state not on the side of Jay Bookman is descended, temperament wise, from the Imperial Wizards of the KKK. Sometimes things just die.

My view is that if anyone wishes the well-considered appreciation of their fellow citizens for public office, or for their proposals to be enacted into legislation, let them earn it by having done something other than being born. Perhaps, if I may be so cruel, they could give a little extra indication that they may deserve merit beyond the fact they have a difference. In this day of the new aristocracy, I understand the consternation this might cause, and the peril my reputation could be under for even saying so (“crazy crackers from the right”), but I am hard-headed like that.

If I may be so bold–try showing up at the Pearly Gates and demanding a quota.

novicegirl January 30, 2013 at 3:41 pm

I think, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the lack of women / minorities in GOP positions, the issue needs to delved into a little deeper. How many women / minorities have run in GOP Primaries and are their losses proportionate.

You have to actually place your name on the ballot before you can expect to win.

Andre January 30, 2013 at 4:19 pm

As the resident black guy around these parts, allow me to say that the picture shown above is what happens when there’s no diversity of political thought and opinion within . . . (wait for it) . . . the black community.

Question: Where is the picture of the House or Senate Democrat Caucus?

As is noted above, Georgia’s population is: White non-Hispanic, 55.5 percent; Black, 31 percent; Hispanic or Latino, 9.1 percent; Asian, 3.4 percent; Under age 40: 56.7 percent.

Of the sixty House Democrat Caucus members, thirteen are white. 22% of the House Democrat Caucus is white, in a state with a 55.5% white population. The Democrat caucus does not reflect the population of Georgia. If it did, 55% of its members would be white, 31% would be black, 9.1% would be Hispanic or Latino, 3.4% would be Asian, and 56.7% would be be under the age of 40.

It seems to me that both parties have a diversity problem.

Georgia is not all white. Georgia is not all black. But we have a black party and a white party in this state.

There’s little that can be done to fix that, aside from forced diversity similar to the internal rules of the Georgia Democrat Party.

The Last Democrat in Georgia January 30, 2013 at 5:28 pm

Just like I’ve told Democrats who whine about not having more leadership positions in the Georgia Legislature despite Georgia Democrats being a freakin’ SUPERMINORITY in the Georgia Legislature, I’ll tell Republicans and conservatives who are whining and asking where is the picture of the of the Democrat Caucus.

Georgia Democrats have no political power in this state. No one cares that their caucus is only 22% white or more than 70% black or whatever (I haven’t seen the exact numbers because, like most other Georgians, I DON’T CARE).

No one is intrigued with the group that is hopelessly out-of-power. It wouldn’t even be much of a story if Jay had posted a picture of the Democrat legislative caucus.

And even if the Georgia Democrat Party wanted to be more diverse (and trust me, as a party that is hopelessly out-of-power, Georgia Democrats definitely want to be more diverse), they couldn’t be, because they have no money and power at present as all of the white men with the real money and power behind them left the party and became Republicans over a decade ago.
On top of that, many Georgia Democrats seem less interested in building a statewide organization from scratch and much more content with merely sitting and waiting for the state’s demographics to overwhelm the now-ruling GOP and propel them to power sometime before 2030.

Both parties don’t have a diversity problem, both parties have a COMPETENCE problem.
Georgia Republicans seem to be too incompetent to hold on to the overwhelming power they have over the long-term and Georgia Democrats seem to be too incompetent to gain the potential power they possess in the short-term.

Comments on this entry are closed.