I see...so a conservative who is not left leaning MUST be only a 'token?" Why? Why isn't the current incumbant the token? Seems to me that this charge can be made just as completely aimed at the left as at the right.
In fact, calling her a 'token' smacks VERY much of racism, as if the only reason she could get the job is because she is Muslim and female. Why aren't those attributes 'tokenism' when the LEFT uses them?
I have heard that if it weren't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all. I wish I weren't coming to believe that more and more every day
Let me try to explain.
The current incumbant isn't so much a token for several reason. First, the Democratic party has in its platform the stated goal to increase the political representation of minorities amongst it's party and has made credible steps forward in that direction. Ilhan Omar isn't the only muslim women in Congress either and there never was as many women in Congress thanks to those efforts. The Republican party cannot say the same. Omar is also a frequently highlighted representative with a certain influence, a known set of favored key policies and agenda, as well as a participation various groups and meeting. She is actively being promoted by the Democrat most progressive branch and can be considered a well known Democrat with the like of AOC for example.
Second, Ilhan Omar was elected and was a candidate in a relatively safe district where a Democrat victory is nearly assured. The fact that the Democrats recruited a member of a minority for an election they thought they were going to win indicates that they were more than ready to see that person have a seat in Congress, represent the party in the media and work beside their old guard.
Candidates in "already lost" district are usually little better than a person on a poster. In my country we call the "lampost candidates" the only time you see them and hear about them is on electoral billboards and that's about it. Those candidates are pretty much sacrificial lambs and parties don't really care or invest in these people anyway. When a party present a candidate in an almost certainly already lost district it's safe to assume this candidate is little more than a sacrificial lamb, a token candidate that will receive little support.
The fact they have chosen a muslim woman seems to be useful as in they can claim to be open to diversity even though that "diversity" will probably never join their ranks in Congress or even in future election. I would also like to point that a miraculous victory of this candidate against Omar wouldn't increase the presence of minority groups or women in Congress, but keep it just as it is.
So, in resumé, because Ilhan Omar is an actively promoted and "serious" politician and not the only one of her gender or religion in a party that has made significant effort to become more representative in its composition of the population of the USA we can say that she isn't a token candidate. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, a much more homogenous party who has made much less serious attempts if any attempt at all at presenting candidates from minority groups nominating a candidate of such a minority in an electoral battle that will almost certainly result in a defeat seems to my eyes like a feeble attempt at looking like your making efforts in this domain without truly trying to recruit candidates from minority groups of the same caliber and number as those of the Democrats. This seems like a textbook example of tokenism.
PS: Tokenism is the practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.
Good luck! 
