Well, there is some truth to this, but a lot more misconceptions to this

I just read the article by Josh Kraushaar in the National Journal discussing the diversity problem associated with the Democratic Party.  While there is some truth to this notion because I've been saying this for a while now that there is a humongous problem within the DNC that involving viable black politicos whom are electable to pluralistic, statewide offices such as the U.S. Senate and governorships.  I've said time, time, and time again that there needs to be more pluralistic candidates promoted to candidacy for statewide offices across the South, but there is those whom are vehemently against this.  Yet, some blacks do wonder why the lack of viable black candidates continues persist in the South. 

On the other hand, there is way more young and non-white voters willing to vote for Democrats over Republicans.  The reasoning is quite obvious T.E.A. twits, Dixiecrats, anti-progressive stance will likely be the Republicans undoing. 

Now, the elections of Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley (ironically both Indian Americans) to the governorships of Louisiana and South Carolina respectively is impressive.  However, notice they aren't electing any blacks or Meso-American Hispanics to the statewide offices because they know it won't fly in the South.  The few blacks elected in the South are always in majority white districts and extremely socially conservative, i.e. Allen West of Florida and Tim Scott of South Carolina.  This individuals aren't reflective of a "pluralistic" candidate rather an anti-thesis of pluralism because they have subjectively refuted an inclusive platform that is very reflective of their congressional districts.  This alone shows anyone with a strong critical analysis skill will notice about this situation of "diversity" in the Republican party.  It also will come back to haunt the GOP because most non-whites see through the overt non-inclusive nature of the current Republican party.