No no no! The founding Fathers were mostly southern white male slave owners who thought only white male land owners should vote.

Are we really going against the Founding Fathers? Only white males are Real Americans!!

(this is sarcasm (from me, at least, but sadly, not from many of our "elite" media))

That picture really makes one proud to be white, eh? Bunch of real smarties there. It's pictures like that that make me think the world would be a better place if the Black Death had been more thorough.

As to Politico, the fact anyone takes this far right disinformation project seriously is proof that white people who live in D.C. really are lower on the evolutionary scale than amoebas.

The manifestation of white privilege is what I like to call the "vanilla fallacy." When I was a kid, there were usually three flavors of ice cream: chocolate, strawberry, and plain. Vanilla was white and didn't have a strong flavor (this was in the days before the really good vanilla you can now get.)

Similarly, for a lot of the political class, there are "normal" voters, and there are various special categories. It's not explicit or intentional racism, it's just a holdover from the days when white people were such an overwhelming majority that they could pretend they were a good approximation of voters as a whole. (It wasn't realistic even then, because there have always been severe differences between white voters by region, by class, by income, but for some reason we were always supposed to pretend that those weren't significant, while the differences between minorities and whites were highly meaningful.)

I think you have a good point... I am an Independent and I voted for President Obama - both times. I am not a Democrat or a Republican, but I like to think I have a brain, little bias, and a good sense of judgement (then again, don't we all?).

I noticed during some of the interviews of the so-called "undecided voters" after the debates that each person went on and on about how strong and awesome Romney was, at times repeating some of the rhetoric I hear on Republican dominated media. They seemed more like they were Republicans trying to get street-cred by claiming to be independents than actual independents.

Skip Hoffman independents. (Maddowblog inside joke)

Indies are growingbecause of the decline in party affiliation, obviously. But that is only half the story. Republicans are losing more people due to their lurch to the right that more moderate members can't stomach. Many"independents" are simply non-teat party Republicans. Politico makes its living of politics it should know the demographic trends regarding party affiliation but that isn't a story is it?

By Politico's logic no Republican president had a broad mandate since the 60's when they decided they didn't need the African American vote. When will pundits learn straight blue collar white males are a minority?

Ironic, that after stating the all of the above categories ( Hispanic, Single Mom, Educated) it seems like Independents are a whole different sub-set, as if to assume that the others don't fall into the Independent category.

Single Moms, Hispanics, educated, African American, Independents.

This only furthers the Wing-Nut obsession that Obama is not a legitimate President.

I remember when Bush claimed a mandate in 2004...But that was only because he finally got a majority of the popular vote (Barely)

After he/they scared everyone sufficiently into thinking they had protected us from 9/11/01 happening (?). So sad, we left OBL free and went to Iraq.

The independent voter is one that doesn't believe in the party platforms.

I gotta say though. If one reads the platforms, there is a really clear difference and the third party only seems to make it worse (in the large area/populated represented) in many ways. You have more people feeling the winning person was not representing THEM.

Maybe being Independent is better than trying to come up with a third party. It appears the T.P. is trying to move Republicans their way, but that leaves the moderate left standing there saying, I can't go along with this or that, so I jump ship. Well we saw Reform Party gather steam in the 90's, but it's just not working here.

We don't really divvy up things proportionally, it's just yes or no, it either goes forward or not. Now is that optimal? Not these days, but that's how I see it. We have some very strong opinions about things and so sour that we just try to stop everything. That's not what we want, when will Congress get it. We are not all going to agree, so we can't allow them to keep doing nothing but allow business to control our policies.

I would not say how to vote, but I have looked at the platforms and found in the large picture, the Democrats line up in my column most favorably but not just perfect for me. Also, there are many other people besides just me.

The Republican platform being way too exclusive and have shown "non conservative" when it comes to conservation of our resources and promoting our interests. Cutting taxes after they were hiding budget spending and borrowing, getting into peoples' business is just way too much and I would never dream of that. They just prop up certain businesses and let them go insufficiently regulated (toward this country's interests) in order to let them undermine Americans.

I see a very large country with wide array of views. So in my view, the Democrats are far, far above the Republicans (that's why I call them Republicants or Rethuglicans). I cannot support them for anything, especially with the TPers folding arms and saying debt ceiling/credit rating is for ransom. No way can I support that. The latest bunch of Rs are horrible, refusing to budge, refusing to do anything for Americans because they want to win election. That is unacceptable.

sandyc954, I agree with many of your points. I do not consider myself a staunch Democrat who toes the party line. However, the Republicans have gone in a direction with their social policies and their IMPLEMENTATION of so-called fiscal conservative policies that I cannot in good conscience vote for one.

I don't agree with every program proposed by the Democrats. I think many programs end up providing perverse incentives to not look for work. There is some fraud and abuse, but I say we fight that rather than just cut the whole program. Fraud and abuse is not enough to solve all our problems, however.

We need to live within our means, but there is absolutely no honesty about what we really need to provide, what it really costs and how to provide the funds for that. It's also dishonest to say that the private sector always does a better job than the government. The private sector is full of examples of fraud, tainted food and medication, rampant pollution, etc.

We shouldn't tax income from work at higher rates than income from investing money. Equalize the rates by cutting ordinary income tax rates and increasing capital gains and dividend and carried interest rates.

I agree Michael.

I am in the Dem. camp, as they share their fire and food with me. I am not a person that fits into the Republican mold of how things ought to be. I am who I am and most Dems accept that, with only a handful of Reps. The R platform excludes me and my marriage. The Dems have a large tent and a warm fire, with s'mores for all. That is why I am in that camp, until they prove otherwise.

Hey, what can I say, I like camping.

Dems have been better on budgets and I totally agree on the capital gains. Unless there's an amount of gain reinvested in domestic investments/jobs, it should be taxed at the same rate as income from work.

and AM radio

I seen both of them (Vandehei/Allen) guys on the TeeVees at Walmart. I don't know what they was sayin', 'cause they don't got the sound on there. But they both looked pretty white to me. . .

Welcome to the dark side. We have cookies

I've always voted Nader (the Raider party?), but the repukes have become so damn evil I've had to vote Demo.

I'd like to think the "student" vote matters..

I've always equated Nader with anti-corruption.

I always thought Al Gore should have made Nader his VP pick instead of Lieberman

I wish it were so, but getting out from under the white sheets ain't gonna happen as long as the GOP thinks they have something to gain from it and idiots like Allen and Vanderhei give credence to the white voter storyline. The white voter bloc is decreasing every day and until political hacks like these guys start doing some real journalism we won't be able to escape this meme. I don't venture over to that poltical cesspool, but I wonder what the comments to that article are like?

As painful and disturbing as it is if you read between the lines, I get joy from the fact that these are the last gasps of people who see the world is changing. This country has been a diverse nation for a long while and what's happening now is the result of a long fight for the equalization of participation and this is the last leg of this hard-fought race. We still have many challenges ahead before we fully cross the finish line, but some of my anger at the disrespect this President and everyone he represents has endured, turns into a smile as I realize it's the last few cheap shots before the other side goes down. History will show that the Republican Party led the last charge to divide us by race. Because diversity is showing up to vote, we are solidifying you can no longer win on the white vote alone. And not just because the minorities becoming the majority, but because there are a great many white people who consider themselves a part of this diverse nation and are supporting it with votes. To demonstrate that racism didn't entirely end with the election of our first African-American President, the history books will point to many clear examples including, the fact that no other modern President ever had to face questions about whether he is an American. And this is a stain that the Republican Party has solely earned. A very limited few Republicans will be able to look back with pride on our first African-American President because they stood up to this disrespect. But the larger majority will not, because even if they didn't agree with it or believe it was racism, they tacitly accepted it and definitely didn't speak out against it. Let's make sure the history books also point out that these efforts failed and Pres. Barack Obama served 8 solid years as one of our great leaders.

@just1voice, you are so right.. Thank you..

@just1voice: Great post. Thanks.

I think the R party has to change their policies of exclusion, because they constantly shake fists at "others" is going to drain away more and more voters.

They have to try to lie and cheat because they've driven so many away.

I second that thanks. We need to bring down this sort of Politico pride every chance we get. You know after Jim and Mike finished writing this they were probably high-fiving each other with big smiles. I hope after the response they get including this, that a sudden awareness of their disrespect has them scrambling around realizing what they represented.

Themiketones, I especially like your last point about where the Repubs in congress go when The Pres wins. My hope is that there is actually some daylight between them and their radical right but the Republicans that might have moved in that direction have been pushed out of the party. I think these people need to be spanked badly in Congressional and local elections before anything sets in.

Actually, fear about losing their supremacy has always been a part of their underlying fears. What "they" (even if I am a pale shade of tan, I do not consider myself a part of some faceless mass of light people) keep forgetting is that this is a nation built by minorities. Maybe it was a racial, religious, or other minority, but a minority nonetheless. The fact polls segregate is sad. The fact we can't move past who traditionally "counts" is sad.

Did you notice that educated whites vote for President Obama? Haha, that really says something, doesn't it? The voter block that is the strongest base for the Republicans and Romney are ignorant. !!!

Sad as both these notions may be, they are still both far from reality, because this IS a broad nation and no matter how many white people are on your side, it’s never a complete mandate in a country full of diversity.

Did you share Ron Paul's advice to carry a gun in case they run into any African American "animals"? I bet that would have landed with them.

That is an interesting phenomenon that you have described. I wonder if there are any methods of challenging the district boundaries based on those discrepancies. It makes little sense that states that often vote for one party in Presidential and Senatorial races have a House delegations that are primarily of the other party, especially when they consist of the more hard-line representatives of that party.

A few years after I moved to Texas, I watched the district lines redrawn and several Democrats lost their seats. I see that a lot. Republicans seem to do that a lot. It bothers me a lot.

Perhaps to Republicans, bi-partisanship means the Tea Party and the Neocons.

I expect (hope!) that he will lead vociferously in the public square, naming and shaming those in the US House of Representatives who are blocking not only progressive reforms, but even "keep the trains running" types of legislation.

How he deals with the so-called "fiscal cliff" problem will be the first test.

BTW, I think that whole argument is bogus, with respect to their being any "cliff" on January 1. Tax rates for example may go up on Jan 1, but the impact (other than psychological) will take more time. And can be reversed retroactive to Jan 1 when they finally do settle something.

He knew he was going to have to swim through a lot in the first four years and not just from an economic perspective, but it's the total of a full-term that he's had in mind all along. As all of us continue to show up to vote, by late Tuesday night the Republican obstructionist Congress will feel the mandate of the people deciding what they want done. Because it won't just be the President who is reelected it will be a whole lot of tea party candidates who aren't elected.