*chuckle*  Good point.

Hahahahaha. What a stupid article. 

I hope the person who wrote it got only 70% of the money real journalists get.

EDIT: Oh, no, wait. It's not even a journalist. Just some brain dead random blogger who doesn't even dare to introduce himself. I bet it's not his real name either.

Nice going, linking to blogs from random morons.

"The racial/ethnic diversity of staff on Democratic campaigns appears impressive. African Americans account for 12% of the American workforce (source) but account for more than twice that share of the workforce on Democratic federal-level campaigns. Staffers of Hispanic and Asian backgrounds are not represented on campaigns at the same level as the overall workforce, but Democratic campaigns are considerably more balanced by this measure than Republican campaigns. Women are underrepresented on campaigns. Republican campaigns have more pronounced disparities both in gender and racial/ethnic representation among campaign staff. 54.2% of all staff on Republican federal-level campaigns are white men, compared to 32.4% on Democratic races. Even on the more gender-balanced Democratic campaigns, however, there are 116 men for every 100 women staffers."

Interesting they didn't decide to pick that quote out.  The spin is strong with this article. 

Could have made for an interesting discussion about the relative level of opportunity for different races, but instead became a reason for an obviously biased blog to take a shot at the other party.

Everything has to be spun politically these days.

Republicans don't have any black staffers, lol *drum roll*

Actually, according to the study they're talking about, they do have significantly less.

Did they do an analysis of relative seniority in campaign staff and racial representation?

I would be extremely surprised to see a white envelope licker get paid more than a black or Hispanic envelope licker on either side. But more than likely the envelope licker team leader will be a white person by simple law of averages: white people make up the largest percent of population so at every level of seniority you would expect to see more white people than non-white. Hence if you grossly compare pay according to race you will always find the majority race to have a higher average pay than the minority races.

The reason the liberal media will ignore this is because it's meaningless drivel. Perhaps Fuax News will pick it up because they think it's a stick they can beat both the liberal media and democrats with at the same time. And people lime socialist slayer will eat it up without doing a moment's independent thought or analysis.

The real test is proportionality. What proportion of non-whites hold senior positions relative to their overall proportion in the population.

The situation is different with women because women are 50 percent of the population. So in an equal society women there should be no average pay difference because men and women should occupy similar levels of seniority regardless of the organisation or profession.

This article is invalid and from an irrelevant source. Posting things like this without doing proper research is dissapointing.

It's not so simple, since men & women don't follow all professions equally.

A higher proportion of men are engineering, business, computing majors which lead to higher paying professions, than say education or psychology majors.

This country benefits white people more than anyone else so no study is needed.Also Democrats and Republicans are the same and are only concerned with their own status.