Here’s Politico yesterday:
If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.
A broad mandate this is not.
So, if you don’t win with non-urban, uneducated white men and married white women… No mandate for you. Because some votes are more ‘merican than others. Josh Marshall says it best: Or to be more specific, Obama’s winning but not with the best votes. I mean really, if you can’t win with a broad cross-section of white people, can you really be said to represent the country?
Amanda Marcotte spells it out:
Sorry, but it’s time to stop assuming that white men are the generic people who get to stand in for everyone else.
“To a large degree, white Americans—and white men, in particular—are still treated as the ‘default’ voter, for whom politicians must focus their appeals. When Mitt Romney held a rally with coal workers in Ohio, he was trying to ‘broaden his appeal.’ When President Obama focuses on immigration and reproductive health—core issues for Latinos and women—he’s ‘pandering.’ The alternative view—that white men are a special interest whose voting is out of sync with the rest of the country—is rarely entertained, despite the fact that it is closer to the truth.”
As many of you know, I have a lot of Republican friends (RINOs) and most of these couples are cancelling out each others vote. He will vote for Romney. She will vote for Obama. But his vote will obviously count more and create a mandate. Her vote, along with Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites, simply aren’t important enough to count towards a mandate – or even a real win. Everybody got that?
Tags: 2012 Presidential