Some Votes Count More Than Others

Filed in National by on November 5, 2012

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?


About the Author ()

A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:

    Because everyone knows that the only mandate that counts is the one of white men.

    Really, this is as good a reason to stop ready Politico as any.

  2. Geezer says:

    So as the campaign winds down, they’ve ditched the dog whistles for regular whistles.

  3. DM says:

    Remember to vote with your “lady smarts” not just your “lady parts” tomorrow.

    If you believe there is an actual War on Women waged by Romney then go ahead and ignore the logic & critical thinking you highly educated posters supposedly encourage…and instead believe like lemmings on your way to the nearest cliff.

    Romney can’t make abortions illegal through executive order nor should he, that’s not how our country works…but he can help fix our economy.

    I’m pretty sure when elected Romney will even let Americans continue to drink coffee 😉

  4. Linda says:

    Better yet why don’t you take your one little itty bitty man part and go drink your coffee and quit worrying about how others on here are voting . . . just sayn . . .

  5. V says:

    wow, DM. Wow.

    You are correct that Romney could not make abortion legal by executive order. What he HAS done is not question or condemn some truly appalling language by anti-choice extremists in his party, said he would happily sign legislation outlawing choice if a republican congress would put it on his desk, selected a VP who sponsored personhood legislation, and promised to appoint conservative (and therefore likely to overturn Roe v. Wade) Supreme Court justices. That’s enough participation in the War on Women for me.

    I’ll be voting with my brain tomorrow, and I invite you and your condescending sexist attitude to go eat a bag of dicks.

  6. pandora says:

    DM thinks that there’s a silly pink economy and serious blue economy. And the pink economy of reproductive rights and equal pay for equal work is frivolous. I dare DM to tell me where deciding to have another child fits into his economic priorities. It’s pretty damn high on mine.

  7. socialistic ben says:

    required follow up to that comment…………
    should he eat each individual dick in the bag one by one…. or just eat the whole thing like a dick-roti?
    Also, how big a bag (and dicks) are we talkin about here?

  8. Geezer says:

    “but he can help fix our economy.”

    Really? How? Are you that gullible all the time, or only when rich white men are shouting sweet nothings from a podium?

  9. V says:

    sb I’m imagining a large, burlap sack. Roughly the size Santa would carry. And obviously to prolong the experience he would have to eat them one by one.

    Unfortunately they start to get soggy towards the bottom. So eat quickly.

  10. Dave says:

    What Politico said was “broad mandate”, not “mandate”, which was a conclusion of the premise “…it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters…”

    And if it Politico had said “…it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of black voters…” Their conclusion would have been the same that “A broad mandate this is not.”

    I read the piece as if Politico was making a point that Obama may not get a significant block of voters – whites. It’s a valid statement and the inclusion of the word “broad” makes the conclusion equally valid, unless someone were to opine that a “broad” mandate can be obtained without (insert name of demographic).

    Additionally, what’s the deal with “mandates” in the first place? No one gets a mandate from an election because we don’t give mandates. Our elected officials may like to think they have one as if they have popular support for a specific policy or program. But the reality is, they receive popular support for ideas, character, perceived or real performance. But the devil is in the details and most of us want to see the details before issuing mandates.

  11. xstryker says:

    Romney’s plan for fixing the economy is to do exactly what Bush did. No thanks. Up ain’t down no matter how you much you spin.

  12. puck says:

    History does provide some guidelines for a mandate. After Bush was re-elected with 50.74% of the popular vote, and 286 electoral votes, he said “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.”

    So if Obama has more than 286 electoral votes or 50.74% of the popular vote, he can certainly claim a mandate – right?

  13. SussexAnon says:

    Bush used his political capital from the mandate to reform social security. And, like all his spending policies, ended up with nothing to show for it.

  14. puck says:

    “Romney’s plan for fixing the economy is to do exactly what Bush did. ”

    Obama also did exactly what Bush did with the economy (poorly designed stimulus, and Bush tax cuts).

    I’m voting for Obama, among other reasons, because there is the possibility he might not do it again, whereas with Romney there is the certainty he will extend and double down on the Bush economic plan.

  15. Dave says:

    He can claim the election and the Presidency but I’m not giving him a mandate. I don’t even give my own mother any mandates. How about you?

    Still, it is true that he has some political capital. How much depends on how narrow the election is (and how “broad” his support is). In my opinion, Obama would have no more of mandate than Bush did, and I didn’t give Bush a mandate either (although to be honest I didn’t vote for Bush, so maybe mandates weren’t mine to give).

  16. socialistic ben says:

    Obama’s next 4 years (assuming the GOP fails at stealing the election… they are already trying) will be about guarding the accomplishments he made in the first term, and keeping a balance on the court. Hopefully he can also focus on showing everyone just how reprehensible the GOP is, and by the time President Clinton is sworn in, they will be down to 20% in the Senate and a small nothing in the house.

  17. heragain says:

    “I read the piece as if Politico was making a point that Obama may not get a significant block of voters – whites.”

    because White people aren’t REALLY white people unless they’re rural, less educated, and male.

    At what point did “white” become code for “appeared on the Dukes of Hazard?”

    For better or worse, I’m a pale gal. Now I’m not even “mandate countable” unless I’m wearing a beard… like the extras in Life of Brian.

    Can’t they hear themselves? Can’t they hear how this ‘othering’ makes our country weaker, not stronger? Couldn’t they look at coverage of the DMC, where the delegates were women, and men, and trans, and straight, and gay, and parents and children, and came in a rainbow of colors and a universe of religious and irreligious flavors, and say, “Look! Look what America did! Look how it took a set of rich white men and created a system where anyone could arrive and be counted and become a great nation.”

    It’s really something to be proud of.


  18. pandora says:

    You read the piece exactly right, heragain.

  19. Change party's says:

    Some votes better than others. Hmm I just switch d to r back to d and get as much money from both along the way I get to say I am a pastor and quote the bible. I like Delaware a lot better than Chicago Rev kris

  20. geezer says:

    Every time you post it costs Mike Protack more votes. Just so you know.

  21. cassandra_m says:

    This one I’ll let slide. Because I want to point out that it is the night before Election Day and Protack or his designee actually has time to spam this board.

    This means that Protack will definitely be adding to his LOSER tattoo across his forehead tomorrow.

  22. Roland D. Lebay says:


    At what point did “white” become code for “appeared on the Dukes of Hazard?”

    Beats me, and I’m in their target demo!

    I grew up in what was rural northern NCC, I have a trade school education & I’m a white man. Unfortunately for them, I don’t buy their line of bullshit.