"In 1988, the Democratic presidential nominee, Michael Dukakis, carried 26 percent of the nation’s counties, 819 of 3,144, on his way to losing the Electoral College 426-111 and the popular vote by seven percentage points. In 2012, President Obama won fewer counties, 690, but he won the popular vote by four points and the Electoral College in a landslide, 332-206."While the title of the op-ed piece is misleading, the content is very interesting and worth reading.
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democratic Party. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
An eye-opening view into demographics and politics
Columbia University School of Journalism professor and New York Times op-ed contributor Tom Edsall has a very interesting piece citing a number of studies about the correlation between demographic changes and political ideology. Of particular note is the following passage:
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Are liberals more pro-woman? A cool graph from a natural experiment | The Incidental Economist
Interesting how the more daughters a representative has, the more likely he/she is to support women's issues compared to the mean for his/her party.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Want to go to the 2012 Democratic National Convention? | Blue Jersey
Blue Jersey has the details if you're interested in being a New Jersey delegate at next year's Democratic National Convention on September 3-7 in Charlotte, NC.
Monday, November 21, 2011
When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality? When Did Liberals Become So Unreasonable? | New York Magazine
Jonathan Chait offers a left-wing critique of liberals. Likewise, David Frum offers a right-wing crtique of conservatives. Both very long yet interesting reads.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
"...if it weren't for the politicians, the economy would have a fighting chance."
The Economist explains how politicians are getting in the way of, rather than spurring on, a recovery:
"In America, the biggest policy-related threat is the fiscal tightening that will happen automatically in the next four months as prior stimulus expires and legislated cuts to discretionary spending bite. Barack Obama has proposed $447 billion in new or renewed stimulus to neutralise that threat, but it requires an ambitious deal in Congress’ super committee, and odds of such a deal by its November 23rd deadline are shrinking. Democrats are reportedly trying to get it to consider tax hikes immediately, and Republicans are apparently saying that puts a big deficit reduction deal out of reach."
Blue-collar Republican voters vote against their self-interest. It was only a matter of time before Republican politicians started doing the same. Old habits die hard, I guess.
"In America, the biggest policy-related threat is the fiscal tightening that will happen automatically in the next four months as prior stimulus expires and legislated cuts to discretionary spending bite. Barack Obama has proposed $447 billion in new or renewed stimulus to neutralise that threat, but it requires an ambitious deal in Congress’ super committee, and odds of such a deal by its November 23rd deadline are shrinking. Democrats are reportedly trying to get it to consider tax hikes immediately, and Republicans are apparently saying that puts a big deficit reduction deal out of reach."
Blue-collar Republican voters vote against their self-interest. It was only a matter of time before Republican politicians started doing the same. Old habits die hard, I guess.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Schumpeter: American idiocracy | The Economist
Great blog post in The Economist chastising Washington for their handling of pretty much everything over the past few years. Here's a part on why there may not be any hope:
"Optimists argue that S&P’s decision may act as a wake-up call. Yet in Washington it is being treated as another battle cry, with Republicans raging about “the Obama downgrade” and Democrats railing against “tea-party terrorists”. The roots of America’s current polarisation are distressingly deep. The parties have reorganised themselves along ideological lines, as white conservatives have abandoned the Democrats and northern liberals the Republicans. The ideological factions have built mighty propaganda machines stretching from Washington think-tanks to the studios of Fox and MSNBC. And ideologues have resorted to previously taboo weapons, such as the threat of default.
This ideological civil war has led to the marginalisation of corporate America. In the Republican Party country-club types have been elbowed aside by Rush Limbaugh listeners. In the Democratic Party the business-friendly centrists who flourished under Bill Clinton have been sidelined by Ivy League intellectuals and trade-union and minority activists."
"Optimists argue that S&P’s decision may act as a wake-up call. Yet in Washington it is being treated as another battle cry, with Republicans raging about “the Obama downgrade” and Democrats railing against “tea-party terrorists”. The roots of America’s current polarisation are distressingly deep. The parties have reorganised themselves along ideological lines, as white conservatives have abandoned the Democrats and northern liberals the Republicans. The ideological factions have built mighty propaganda machines stretching from Washington think-tanks to the studios of Fox and MSNBC. And ideologues have resorted to previously taboo weapons, such as the threat of default.
This ideological civil war has led to the marginalisation of corporate America. In the Republican Party country-club types have been elbowed aside by Rush Limbaugh listeners. In the Democratic Party the business-friendly centrists who flourished under Bill Clinton have been sidelined by Ivy League intellectuals and trade-union and minority activists."
Friday, August 12, 2011
Ideological Leanings of "The Supercommittee"
Great blog post that maps out where the 12 members of the debt super committee stands ideologically versus each other. Worth the quick read.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Republicans/Tea Party own this downgrade (says pretty much everyone.)
Noahpinion has an interesting read. Very well said:
"Debt is now approaching 100% of GDP...If the Reagan-Bush I debt runup had not occurred, we would only be at 70%. If the Bush II tax cuts had not occurred, we would probably be around the same level or slightly higher. If neither Republican debt binge had occurred, anyone who tried to question U.S. solvency would be laughed out of the room."
Along the same lines, Joe Nocera writes in today's column pretty much the same thing:
"The downgrade, after all, was less about economics than politics. S.& P. was frightened by the same thing that has scared most Americans: the spectacle of an unyielding minority of Tea Party Republicans ready to push the country into default rather than accept even modest tax increases to help bring down the deficit. “The effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy-making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges,” wrote S.& P. in its downgrade report. Who can disagree?
Has any president in American history left behind as much lasting damage as George W. Bush? In addition to two unfinished wars, he also set us on the path to our current financial mess. The Bush tax cuts, which turned a surplus into a growing deficit, have been disastrous."
That's why Peter Orszag's recommendation to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire makes sense:
"...the most straightforward way to raise the needed revenue is to allow all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, not only those for high-earners, to expire at the end of next year. That would lower the 10- year deficit by more than $3 trillion. (Democrats who bemoan the role of the tax cuts in driving up the deficit but then favor extending the vast majority of them are suffering from cognitive dissonance.)"
At some point the Republican Party needs to say enough is enough to the Tea Party. Unfortunately I can't imagine a day when that will actually happen.
"Debt is now approaching 100% of GDP...If the Reagan-Bush I debt runup had not occurred, we would only be at 70%. If the Bush II tax cuts had not occurred, we would probably be around the same level or slightly higher. If neither Republican debt binge had occurred, anyone who tried to question U.S. solvency would be laughed out of the room."
Along the same lines, Joe Nocera writes in today's column pretty much the same thing:
"The downgrade, after all, was less about economics than politics. S.& P. was frightened by the same thing that has scared most Americans: the spectacle of an unyielding minority of Tea Party Republicans ready to push the country into default rather than accept even modest tax increases to help bring down the deficit. “The effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy-making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges,” wrote S.& P. in its downgrade report. Who can disagree?
Has any president in American history left behind as much lasting damage as George W. Bush? In addition to two unfinished wars, he also set us on the path to our current financial mess. The Bush tax cuts, which turned a surplus into a growing deficit, have been disastrous."
That's why Peter Orszag's recommendation to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire makes sense:
"...the most straightforward way to raise the needed revenue is to allow all of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, not only those for high-earners, to expire at the end of next year. That would lower the 10- year deficit by more than $3 trillion. (Democrats who bemoan the role of the tax cuts in driving up the deficit but then favor extending the vast majority of them are suffering from cognitive dissonance.)"
At some point the Republican Party needs to say enough is enough to the Tea Party. Unfortunately I can't imagine a day when that will actually happen.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Washington's Dirty Little Secret
Ezra Klein uncovers something most people don't realize: tax expenditures and government spending are really the same thing:
"The government pays employers $700 billion to offer health insurance to their employees, which no economist would say is a good idea. We’re subsidizing select parts of the energy sector, spending almost $2 billion, for instance, to subsidize “open-loop biomass” rather than simply pricing carbon emissions and letting the market work out the details, and we’re handing $4 billion to oil and gas companies that explore for new reserves.
Midway through my excavation, however, when I was really just getting warmed up, I realized I had made a mistake. I wasn’t looking at the federal budget — I was looking at the U.S. tax code. So cutting all those costly programs wouldn’t count as cutting spending to Republicans in Washington. It would count as raising taxes.
All those programs are tucked in the tax code, classified as “tax expenditures.” Like traditional government spending, the point is to achieve specific ends by throwing money at a problem. The only difference is that the beneficiaries don’t receive checks from the government, they simply have their tax liabilities reduced. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, in 2010 alone, tax expenditures cost the government more than $1 trillion — more than Medicaid and Medicare combined."
"The government pays employers $700 billion to offer health insurance to their employees, which no economist would say is a good idea. We’re subsidizing select parts of the energy sector, spending almost $2 billion, for instance, to subsidize “open-loop biomass” rather than simply pricing carbon emissions and letting the market work out the details, and we’re handing $4 billion to oil and gas companies that explore for new reserves.
Midway through my excavation, however, when I was really just getting warmed up, I realized I had made a mistake. I wasn’t looking at the federal budget — I was looking at the U.S. tax code. So cutting all those costly programs wouldn’t count as cutting spending to Republicans in Washington. It would count as raising taxes.
All those programs are tucked in the tax code, classified as “tax expenditures.” Like traditional government spending, the point is to achieve specific ends by throwing money at a problem. The only difference is that the beneficiaries don’t receive checks from the government, they simply have their tax liabilities reduced. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that, in 2010 alone, tax expenditures cost the government more than $1 trillion — more than Medicaid and Medicare combined."
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
“There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is.”
Great column explaining how the calamity we face today is eerily similar to the calamity faced by the American economy in the 1870's. Oddly enough, the failed solutions put forth back are eerily similar to what is being proposed by the political Right today:
"In the face of economic calamity and skyrocketing unemployment, the government did, well, nothing. No federal unemployment insurance eased families’ suffering and kept a floor on demand. No central bank existed to fight deflation. Large-scale government stimulus was a thing of the distant future.
As demand collapsed, businesses slashed payrolls and reduced wages, and a ruinous period of deflation began. By 1879, wholesale prices had declined 30 percent. The consequences were catastrophic for the nation’s many debtors and set off a vicious economic cycle. When economic growth eventually began, progress was slow, with periodic crises plaguing the economy through the end of the century."
The only thing missing today are the riots.
"In the face of economic calamity and skyrocketing unemployment, the government did, well, nothing. No federal unemployment insurance eased families’ suffering and kept a floor on demand. No central bank existed to fight deflation. Large-scale government stimulus was a thing of the distant future.
As demand collapsed, businesses slashed payrolls and reduced wages, and a ruinous period of deflation began. By 1879, wholesale prices had declined 30 percent. The consequences were catastrophic for the nation’s many debtors and set off a vicious economic cycle. When economic growth eventually began, progress was slow, with periodic crises plaguing the economy through the end of the century."
The only thing missing today are the riots.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Would we be asking about the birth certificate if his name was Barry Dunham?
I agree with the premise of this column to some extent.
"This shameful episode has little to do with reality and everything to do with the strangeness of Obama’s background — especially his race. Many Republicans refuse to accept that Obama could come from such an exotic stew and still be “American.” They have to delegitimize him. So, even though the certificate of live birth first made public in 2008 is a legal document that any court would have to recognize, they demanded more.
No American president has ever been so humiliated, and those who think it has nothing to do with race are deluding themselves."
Odd sounding names aren't really questioned with someone like Reince Priebus but even that may have more to do with the combination of his political affiliation and race than just his race or name alone. If former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm ran for president, only a few would initially question it even though she was born in Canada (Vancouver, British Columbia specifically).
The same column even made a similar statement about our 35th President:
“At least one president, John F. Kennedy, came from bootlegging Irish heritage. It was always a side issue, the mist of his father’s past, though nobody ever forced Jack Kennedy to prove he wasn’t a criminal. He looked like most Americans, and that was enough.”
Perhaps the same could be said for a ‘Barry Dunham’? I get asked repeatedly how old I was when I came to this country, only to surprise people with the fact that I was born in Brooklyn, New York and my parents gave a traditional name because they were proud of their heritage.
If Barack Obama was known as Barry Dunham, a guy from Hawai'i that used his mother's maiden name and childhood nickname because he barely knew his own father, would we be having the same birther discussion?
If I ran for President of the United States one day, would I get asked this question repeatedly? I'm not so sure I wouldn't. Of course, I'm not planning to run for President anytime soon but if I do one day, I did get a copy of my birth certificate.
"This shameful episode has little to do with reality and everything to do with the strangeness of Obama’s background — especially his race. Many Republicans refuse to accept that Obama could come from such an exotic stew and still be “American.” They have to delegitimize him. So, even though the certificate of live birth first made public in 2008 is a legal document that any court would have to recognize, they demanded more.
No American president has ever been so humiliated, and those who think it has nothing to do with race are deluding themselves."
Odd sounding names aren't really questioned with someone like Reince Priebus but even that may have more to do with the combination of his political affiliation and race than just his race or name alone. If former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm ran for president, only a few would initially question it even though she was born in Canada (Vancouver, British Columbia specifically).
The same column even made a similar statement about our 35th President:
“At least one president, John F. Kennedy, came from bootlegging Irish heritage. It was always a side issue, the mist of his father’s past, though nobody ever forced Jack Kennedy to prove he wasn’t a criminal. He looked like most Americans, and that was enough.”
Perhaps the same could be said for a ‘Barry Dunham’? I get asked repeatedly how old I was when I came to this country, only to surprise people with the fact that I was born in Brooklyn, New York and my parents gave a traditional name because they were proud of their heritage.
If Barack Obama was known as Barry Dunham, a guy from Hawai'i that used his mother's maiden name and childhood nickname because he barely knew his own father, would we be having the same birther discussion?
If I ran for President of the United States one day, would I get asked this question repeatedly? I'm not so sure I wouldn't. Of course, I'm not planning to run for President anytime soon but if I do one day, I did get a copy of my birth certificate.
Friday, April 29, 2011
The rest is just commentary...
From a blog post on the Economist:
"...neither party is prepared to make the basic compromises that are essential to a deal. Republicans refuse to accept that taxes will have to rise, Democrats that spending on “entitlements” such as health care and pensions must fall. No real progress is likely until after the 2012 presidential election."
This is the entire issue at hand here. The rest of the column is just commentary, which makes me wonder if the work of the Gang of Six can be so promising with the 2012 election hanging in the background:
"The popular culture tends to treat “politician” as a synonym for “craven.” But I think the Gang of Six is the kind of undertaking that should give politics a good name. After all, true believers are usually the ones who get us into wars; negotiators get us out of them. Revolutionaries are the people to see if you’re trying to overthrow a bad government; politicians are the folks to call if you’re building a better one.
In my experience, the great reformers tend to have three things in common. They are optimists, because reform begins with a sense that things can be better. They have the courage to stand up not only to their adversaries but also to their allies. And they can bend. People tend to remember Nelson Mandela as the moral champion who liberated South Africa by suffering in prison for 27 years. The fact is he liberated South Africa by sitting down and cutting a deal with the white leaders who put him in prison."
"...neither party is prepared to make the basic compromises that are essential to a deal. Republicans refuse to accept that taxes will have to rise, Democrats that spending on “entitlements” such as health care and pensions must fall. No real progress is likely until after the 2012 presidential election."
This is the entire issue at hand here. The rest of the column is just commentary, which makes me wonder if the work of the Gang of Six can be so promising with the 2012 election hanging in the background:
"The popular culture tends to treat “politician” as a synonym for “craven.” But I think the Gang of Six is the kind of undertaking that should give politics a good name. After all, true believers are usually the ones who get us into wars; negotiators get us out of them. Revolutionaries are the people to see if you’re trying to overthrow a bad government; politicians are the folks to call if you’re building a better one.
In my experience, the great reformers tend to have three things in common. They are optimists, because reform begins with a sense that things can be better. They have the courage to stand up not only to their adversaries but also to their allies. And they can bend. People tend to remember Nelson Mandela as the moral champion who liberated South Africa by suffering in prison for 27 years. The fact is he liberated South Africa by sitting down and cutting a deal with the white leaders who put him in prison."
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
What do you mean the birth certificate is real!?! What do you mean he's really a moderate!?!
Ezra Klein explains where Barack Obama's policy ideas come from. Democrats aren't going to believe it and Republicans are going to be in denial about it:
"President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican from the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him."
"President Obama, if you look closely at his positions, is a moderate Republican from the early 1990s. And the Republican Party he’s facing has abandoned many of its best ideas in its effort to oppose him."
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Don't vote if you don't like facts...
Great column about how little the voting public actually knows about issues:
Monday, March 7, 2011
Nikki Haley is born on January 20th? Hmm...
The New York Times Magazine did an interesting interview with South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley. Among some of the topics discussed are her disqualification as a 5-year old from a local pageant because she could not be classified as either 'White' or 'Black' to fit into the two categories of the pageant as well as her conversion to Christianity from Sikhism.
Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker first floated the idea a few years ago of Haley being part of a national ticket. With the dearth of viable candidates on the Republican Side in 2012, the GOP is starting to look like the 2004 Democratic Party, who essentially chose the least objectionable establishment candidate that ended up being overshadowed by a new upstart at the convention (some guy named 'Obama' or something like that.)
Could Nikki Haley be the 2012 GOP version of the 2004 Barack Obama? After reading the interview, I have a feeling she's hoping for a very happy 45th birthday for the presidential inauguration in 2017.
Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker first floated the idea a few years ago of Haley being part of a national ticket. With the dearth of viable candidates on the Republican Side in 2012, the GOP is starting to look like the 2004 Democratic Party, who essentially chose the least objectionable establishment candidate that ended up being overshadowed by a new upstart at the convention (some guy named 'Obama' or something like that.)
Could Nikki Haley be the 2012 GOP version of the 2004 Barack Obama? After reading the interview, I have a feeling she's hoping for a very happy 45th birthday for the presidential inauguration in 2017.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Avoiding the wool being pulled over their eyes...
And you thought bipartisanship was dead, right? Jennifer Steinhauer of The New York Times profiles the interesting friendship between New York Democrat Anthony Weiner and Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz that started with their mutual dislike of mohair. Weiner is known for his raucous TV appearances:
Meanwhile Chaffetz is known as the Congressman that lives in his D.C. office instead of renting an apartment and as the guy that famously leg-wrestled Stephen Colbert on "The Colbert Report":
In spite of their political differences, one thing they do have in common is neither seems to take himself too seriously, much like another Utah Republican, Orrin Hatch, and his description of his relationship with Ted Kennedy.
"Disagreements over policy, however, were never personal with Ted. I recall a debate over increasing the minimum wage. Ted had launched into one of his patented histrionic speeches, the kind where he flailed his arms and got red in the face, spewing all sorts of red meat liberal rhetoric. When he finished, he stepped over to the minority side of the Senate chamber, put his arm around my shoulder, and said with a laugh and a grin, “How was that, Orrin?”"
If laughter is the best medicine, perhaps levity is the best route to bipartisanship?
Meanwhile Chaffetz is known as the Congressman that lives in his D.C. office instead of renting an apartment and as the guy that famously leg-wrestled Stephen Colbert on "The Colbert Report":
In spite of their political differences, one thing they do have in common is neither seems to take himself too seriously, much like another Utah Republican, Orrin Hatch, and his description of his relationship with Ted Kennedy.
"Disagreements over policy, however, were never personal with Ted. I recall a debate over increasing the minimum wage. Ted had launched into one of his patented histrionic speeches, the kind where he flailed his arms and got red in the face, spewing all sorts of red meat liberal rhetoric. When he finished, he stepped over to the minority side of the Senate chamber, put his arm around my shoulder, and said with a laugh and a grin, “How was that, Orrin?”"
If laughter is the best medicine, perhaps levity is the best route to bipartisanship?
Friday, December 17, 2010
So what's all this bickering over taxes really about?
Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein tries to explain why Democrats and Republicans disagree on tax policy:
"There may be some truth to the Republican belief that lowering taxes overall is a good way to boost economic growth or contain the size of government. However, that would apply just as well to cuts in corporate and payroll taxes or additional income tax cuts for the middle class. Yet you don't see Republicans drawing lines in the sand over those. What's so magical about the estate tax or the top marginal income tax rate?"
Read the entire column to find out the answer to this question. My personal take on it is both the Left and the Right have gotten themselves so wired up for a fight that they have forgotten the basic difference between fact and opinion.
"There may be some truth to the Republican belief that lowering taxes overall is a good way to boost economic growth or contain the size of government. However, that would apply just as well to cuts in corporate and payroll taxes or additional income tax cuts for the middle class. Yet you don't see Republicans drawing lines in the sand over those. What's so magical about the estate tax or the top marginal income tax rate?"
Read the entire column to find out the answer to this question. My personal take on it is both the Left and the Right have gotten themselves so wired up for a fight that they have forgotten the basic difference between fact and opinion.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Some good-natured fun at the expense of Democrats and Republicans
Ben Schott's blog at The New York Times, Schott's Vocab, offers some good-natured fun from celebrities and readers poking fun at both Democrats and Republicans. An example from conservative humorist P.J. O'Rourke: “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then get elected and prove it.”
E N J O Y ! ! !
E N J O Y ! ! !
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Indian-Americans on the 2010 American Political Scene
By now, even the most apolitical person has seen the Indian-American Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. And many people have also heard the name of Nikki Haley, the Republican candidate for Governor of South Carolina, who jumped from last to first in the Republican field after an endorsement from a certain former Governor of Alaska. In a recent opinion piece in The Daily Beast, Tunku Varadarajan writes that Jindal and Haley are "exploding racial attitudes-and why the Dems don't get it."
I guess when Varadarajan wasn't paying attention, the Boston Globe and Christian Science Monitor were both paying attention. The Boston Globe ran this article titled Record number of Indian-Americans seeking office, while the Christian Science Monitor ran The rise of the Indian-American candidate, as Nikki Haley and others run. Contradicting Varadarajan's claim of how the Democrats "don't get it", the articles point out that there are actually SIX Democratic candidates for the United States House of Representatives and an organizations like the Indian American Leadership Initiative and US India Political Action Committee are actively promoting Indian-Americans on the political scene.
The Indian-Americans running for Congress are:
Dr. Manan Trivedi (PA - 6th District)
Reshma Saujani (NY - 14th)
Raj Goyle (KS -4th)
Dr. Ami Bera (CA - 3rd)
Ravi Sangisetty (LA - 3rd)
Surya Yalamanchili (OH - 2nd)
Also, one of the rising stars in the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris, is considered the favorite to win as California's Attorney General. Harris is the daughter of a Black father and Indian mother and has often been spoken of as a future presidential candidate in Democratic circles.
So even though the two most prominent Indian-American politicians are Republicans, they are clearly outnumbered by the Democrats this year. And regardless of your political affiliation, it is important to see Americans of all shapes and stripes making their own impact on our great American democratic experiment that has existed for 234 years and counting!
I guess when Varadarajan wasn't paying attention, the Boston Globe and Christian Science Monitor were both paying attention. The Boston Globe ran this article titled Record number of Indian-Americans seeking office, while the Christian Science Monitor ran The rise of the Indian-American candidate, as Nikki Haley and others run. Contradicting Varadarajan's claim of how the Democrats "don't get it", the articles point out that there are actually SIX Democratic candidates for the United States House of Representatives and an organizations like the Indian American Leadership Initiative and US India Political Action Committee are actively promoting Indian-Americans on the political scene.
The Indian-Americans running for Congress are:
Dr. Manan Trivedi (PA - 6th District)
Reshma Saujani (NY - 14th)
Raj Goyle (KS -4th)
Dr. Ami Bera (CA - 3rd)
Ravi Sangisetty (LA - 3rd)
Surya Yalamanchili (OH - 2nd)
Also, one of the rising stars in the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris, is considered the favorite to win as California's Attorney General. Harris is the daughter of a Black father and Indian mother and has often been spoken of as a future presidential candidate in Democratic circles.
So even though the two most prominent Indian-American politicians are Republicans, they are clearly outnumbered by the Democrats this year. And regardless of your political affiliation, it is important to see Americans of all shapes and stripes making their own impact on our great American democratic experiment that has existed for 234 years and counting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)