Do you believe the democrats received a mandate in this weeks election? (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

your comments please:

 

[Kandahar]

Of course they did. What possible reason is there for thinking otherwise?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Not at all. Can you name a single Democratic policy, or a single plank of the Democratic platform, that people have suddenly embraced? Have the people changed?

No.

This election delivered a sound rebuke to the inept and immoral behavior of the Republicans-- but nothing more. If the Republicans clean up, or the Democrats prove little better, we will see a similar performance in 2010 or 2012.

 

[Kandahar]

Not at all. Can you name a single Democratic policy, or a single plank of the Democratic platform, that people have suddenly embraced? Have the people changed?

No.

This election delivered a sound rebuke to the inept and immoral behavior of the Republicans-- but nothing more. If the Republicans clean up, or the Democrats prove little better, we will see a similar performance in 2010 or 2012.

Ah, I agree with that. The voters punished the GOP more than they embraced the Democrats. I do think that the election gave Democrats a mandate on certain things, such as congressional oversight of the White House, finding some kind of alternative solution to Iraq, and balancing the budget.

 

[Iriemon]

In 2000 the Republican candidate won the electoral college, but received fewer votes than his opponent. Nonetheless he claimed a mandate and set out making drastic changes in many areas of economic, social, and foreign policy.

For the Republicans to now claim a historic change of power in Congress doesn't represent a mandate is, well, laughable.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

In 2000 the Republican candidate won the electoral college, but received fewer votes than his opponent. Nonetheless he claimed a mandate and set out making drastic changes in many areas of economic, social, and foreign policy.

For the Republicans to now claim a historic change of power in Congress doesn't represent a mandate is, well, laughable.

Bush never claimed a mandate in '00 that was in '04, where do you come up with this sh!t?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Of course they did. What possible reason is there for thinking otherwise?

Because Conservatism didn't lose the Republicans lost because they abandoned Conservative principles the majority didn't all of a sudden become Liberals sh!t the only reason why the Dems won at all was because they ran Blue Dog Dems, but now you got all these people claiming that the Republicans lost because they were to far right and such nonsense but that couldn't be further from the truth they lost because they became what they ran against with the contract for America IE corrupt Washington elitests. I still think it would have been better to reform the party while they were in power because the Pelosi House and the Reid Senate are going to be far far worse than the Rep Congress could ever hope to be, but enh we're all ****ed now and let's hope the country is still standing when '10 comes around, and the Republicans don't get the message and go further to the left in attempt to imitate the Dems but rather go back to the Conservative principles which got them into power in the first place. This conciliatory bullshit out of GWB is not a sign of optimism though.

 

[Moot]

I voted NO. The Democrats did not recieve a mandate. Many of the congressional elections were won by a such narrow margines that it shows there is still a great divided across the land. Mainly, I think people used this election to vote against Bush, the Iraq War, corruption and the recent scandles that have been plaguing the GOP, more than they voted for Democrats per se. Also, many of the rightwing religous base didn't even show up at the polls.

Independents, women, Hispanics and young people carried the day in this election. It's quite a diverse group and I suspect getting anything done over the next two years in congress, other than perhaps some accountabilty, will be like "herding cats" to get all the new breed of blue dog democrats that just got elected to agree as block on any legislation.

Nope, no mandate. Just a breath of fresh air is all.

 

[jujuman13]

I believe that Bush was in a sense corralled by the Senate and House and in this way was not able to bring his own idea's to fruition.
The industrial war machine demands of America that it starts a war roughly every 15 to 20 years, this permits vast expenditures to take place that would, if the US were at peace, not otherwise be funded.
I further believe that Bush having had his idea's with regard to SS and Medicare and Illegal immigration shot down by neocons, decided that it was time they were taught a lesson. Hence the sacking of Rumsfeld after the election rout.
Apart from the Iraq war, I think that Bush will be quite happy to work with the Democrats, who are as freedom loving as were the Neo-cons supposed to have been.
I do not see the Democrats as being the ruin of the USA, I see them more as a party that are appalled by the profligate spending that has been authorized by those currently in control.
It is certainly about time that some party exercised fiscal responsibility with respect of the Lobbyists system which for far far too long has been seen as the true rulers of the USA.
The GOP currently in power are very similar to pigs feeding at a massive trough, all the while insisting that the trough remains the same size but that the money pile gets bigger each year.
I say good riddance to these people, they have been the cause of bringing the US to the brink and by causing the US to become a debtor nation rather than the richest nation in the world.
I believe in terms of wealth the US is some way down the list behind at least 1 Communist country and possibly behind an ex Communist country.
This does lead me to a question.
Who actually won the cold war?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I voted NO. The Democrats did not recieve a mandate. Many of the congressional elections were won by a such narrow margines that it shows there is still a great divided across the land. Mainly, I think people used this election to vote against Bush, the Iraq War, corruption and the recent scandles that have been plaguing the GOP, more than they voted for Democrats per se.

But if the Democrats are the party that represents opposition to Bush, opposition to the war as it has been run, opposition to scandals and corruption, then wouldn't the victory be considered a mandate? A mandate to, as Kandahar said, create some oversight and deal with the war and the budget? I agree that it isn't a mandate to promote gay marriage and abortion, despite all the crap I keep hearing about Pelosi's "San Francisco values," but that isn't the entirety of the Democratic party any more than pro-life Christian fundamentalism is the totality of the Republican party. But when one group has been in control, and the other group gets control, I'd say the new guys have a mandate.

 

[Moot]

But if the Democrats are the party that represents opposition to Bush, opposition to the war as it has been run, opposition to scandals and corruption, then wouldn't the victory be considered a mandate? A mandate to, as Kandahar said, create some oversight and deal with the war and the budget? I agree that it isn't a mandate to promote gay marriage and abortion, despite all the crap I keep hearing about Pelosi's "San Francisco values," but that isn't the entirety of the Democratic party any more than pro-life Christian fundamentalism is the totality of the Republican party. But when one group has been in control, and the other group gets control, I'd say the new guys have a mandate.

Actually, despite the bickering, Democrats aren't that much different than Republicans on the issues that matter to mainstream middleclass Americans, to say they are truly the opposite of Republicans.

Consider that many of the newly elected Democrats are Blue Dogs and former Republicans. They are probably closer to moderate conservative Republicans than they are to Progressive Liberals. Which might help explain how the Dems were able to win this election in some of the more conservative red states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Democrats

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061031-120134-6050r.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061102/pl_nm/usa_elections_kansas_dc

The Democrat party isn't monolithic, but instead has many factions. But more recently because of the war in Iraq, the party is split in two. Part of it wants to lean right(pro-war) and the other part wants to lean left(anti-war). So it might be difficult for Nanci Pelosi to reign them in to vote as a block on the Iraq war or the war on terror to say they have a mandate on those issues.

Maybe this link can explain it better than I can...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#The_Party_Today

If they do have a mandate then perhaps it is on social security, medicare prescriptions and minimum wage increase. But any mandate the Democrats think they might have, there is still a Republican president who can use his veto power. Personally, I'm just glad the Dems got elected to hopefully bring back some oversight and accountiblity. That is the one thing they can do. Because we definitely don't need any more rubber stamp congresses.

 

[jfuh]

Mandate? obviously, and that is how to deal with Iraq.

 

[FreeThinker]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mandate

According to most definitions on the web, a mandate is simply electing someone and/or expecting them to do certain things as their representative.

By that standard my Republican governor has a 54% mandate in my state. Yay for Florida.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Mandate? obviously, and that is how to deal with Iraq.

Was the Congress granted the title of Commander and Chief and I missed a meeting? The Congress has no war powers when it comes to conducting the war, their power is restricted to the purse, and if they cut funding and put our boys in danger you damn sure better believe it will be time for rebellion.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Was the Congress granted the title of Commander and Chief and I missed a meeting? The Congress has no war powers when it comes to conducting the war, their power is restricted to the purse, and if they cut funding and put our boys in danger you damn sure better believe it will be time for rebellion.

Excuse me; putting our boys in danger is time for rebellion? Why haven't you risen up in righteous anger against Bush yet?

Do you have any principles that withstand your partisanship?

 

[Gordon Shumway]

On election night it was a mandate on the Iraq War. People obviously voted per their desire for a change. But, the morning after, the mandate was nullified. This idea that the Iraq War policy was somehow going to change was an effective campaign tool; but, it was a lie & the American people bought it hook, line & sinker.

The American people want real change but they aren't going to get it. Instead, they'll get new definitions on the reality that is the War on Terror. The problem with so many voting for a mandate on a single issue is that this "voter mandate" will be used for the wrong reason. The War on Terror/in Iraq/etc. will keep plugging along. It'll get wrapped up near the 2008 elections & both sides will claim they're the one bringing our boys home. But the reality will be that losing our country to illegal immigrants will already be set in motion. That's what this "voter mandate" is going to accomplish.

 

[26 X World Champs]

your comments please:

Look at it this way? The Dems won:

The House with a larger majority than the GOP had.

Won the Senate when no one thought it was possible.

Won the Governor races flipping what was a 28-22 GOP advantage to a 28-22 Democrat advantage.

Won 275 (net) new seats in state houses across the country.

Democrats didn't lose one incumbent House, Senate or Governor's race.

Add it all up and we have one LARGE Democratic Mandate!

Republican's can try to make themselves feel better by spinning whatever way they want but when the Minimum Wage goes up in January etc. you'll see what sort of mandate we have!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Excuse me; putting our boys in danger is time for rebellion? Why haven't you risen up in righteous anger against Bush yet?

Because the Congress voted for the war to put our troops into harms way, it was the will of the people spoken through our elected Representatives, that is the job of the military to fight abroad so that we can have peace at home, however, once put into that position by their government if the Democrats now turn around and vote to cut their funding to have them sitting out there like a bird on a wire that is not just irresponsible it is downright treasonous.

Do you have any principles that withstand your partisanship?

My principles are such that once the government votes to put the troops in harms way they need to do everything within their power to makesure they have what they need to get the job done and never to play partisan-politics with their lives, that's what the Democrats did in Vietnam and it looks as though that is what they plan on doing now.

 

[Navy Pride]

Look at it this way? The Dems won:

The House with a larger majority than the GOP had.

Won the Senate when no one thought it was possible.

Won the Governor races flipping what was a 28-22 GOP advantage to a 28-22 Democrat advantage.

Won 275 (net) new seats in state houses across the country.

Democrats didn't lose one incumbent House, Senate or Governor's race.

Add it all up and we have one LARGE Democratic Mandate!

Republican's can try to make themselves feel better by spinning whatever way they want but when the Minimum Wage goes up in January etc. you'll see what sort of mandate we have!

I don't know how you can say that...well maybe I do considering who it is......You might not know it but there are still 8 races to be decided in the HOR..........In addition the dems don't have a super majority in either house and Bush still has his veto.......A whole bunch of the dems elected are blue dog dems as well as Webb and Casey in the Senate who are both Conservatives...........

You just might be disappointed in how the Blue Dogs and the Conservatives vote.......

 

[26 X World Champs]

My principles are such that once the government votes to put the troops in harms way they need to do everything within their power to makesure they have what they need to get the job done and never to play partisan-politics with their lives, that's what the Democrats did in Vietnam and it looks as though that is what they plan on doing now.

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is not valid in my opinion. During the Vietnam War Americans were severely divided and did NOT support our troops (I am guilty of this feeling).

Today virtually EVERY American supports our troops but 70% do not support the war. It's very, very different.

The ignorance inbedded into a statement that claims that it is not possible to support our troops but oppose the war is assinine, stupid and misguided.

Only someone who is totally out of touch with today would suggest or believe that Americans do not support our military. Maybe it's because they're stuck in 1970 and can only remember how troops then were not respected? To me that's not an excuse because 36 years have passed and times change even if someone is not smart enough to know it.

 

[26 X World Champs]

You just might be disappointed in how the Blue Dogs and the Conservatives vote.......

You can convince yourself of anything you like but the TRUTH is that the Dems are in power now and the Republicans like you are on the outside looking in and will be for a very long time.

You can live in a STATE OF DENIAL like Bush does but you know what NP? It doesn't change the truth.

BTW - See Bush's new poll numbers released today by Newsweek? His approval rating is down to 31% an all-time low! :rofl

 

[Navy Pride]

Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is not valid in my opinion. During the Vietnam War Americans were severely divided and did NOT support our troops (I am guilty of this feeling).

Today virtually EVERY American supports our troops but 70% do not support the war. It's very, very different.

The ignorance inbedded into a statement that claims that it is not possible to support our troops but oppose the war is assinine, stupid and misguided.

Only someone who is totally out of touch with today would suggest or believe that Americans do not support our military. Maybe it's because they're stuck in 1970 and can only remember how troops then were not respected? To me that's not an excuse because 36 years have passed and times change even if someone is not smart enough to know it.

I boggles the mind when you say all democrats support our troops when a lot of them don't want them to complete their mission and your leaders like Kerry, Durbin, Dean and Murtha continue to make outrageous statements against them..................The truth is your leaders are a bunch of snobs who think they are better then our guys in Iraq........

 

[Navy Pride]

You can convince yourself of anything you like but the TRUTH is that the Dems are in power now and the Republicans like you are on the outside looking in and will be for a very long time.

You can live in a STATE OF DENIAL like Bush does but you know what NP? It doesn't change the truth.

BTW - See Bush's new poll numbers released today by Newsweek? His approval rating is down to 31% an all-time low! :rofl

We still have the most important position in government and that is the Presidency and I pray he has his veto pen has plenty of ink......

Eat your heart out.........

 

[26 X World Champs]

I boggles the mind when you say all democrats support our troops when a lot of them don't want them to complete their mission .

Sadly you will just never understand the reality of this war. Support the mission? What is that mission NP? As Bush says, "Victory"? It is a FAILED mission by anyone's standards (i.e. Rumsfeld getting fired).

Why don't you try to actually educate yourself and read STATE OF DENIAL and then we can talk, OK? It's extremely revealing as to the utter incompetence of the Bush Administration in managing this war...one that should never have been started, one that never had a plan, one that cannot be won.

None of that does not mean that I do not support our troops! I do! I want them home ASAP with their families so they're no longer in harm's way. Sadly there's no simple way to get them home because of the utter quagmire that Bush has created.

You want disrespect for our troops? Read STATE OF DENIAL and open your eyes to how fuc ked up the entire management of this war has been. You can throw out all the stupid stereotypes you want about Democrats not supporting our troops but that opinion is full of sh!t and nothing more than a losing talking point tossed out by Bush and talk radio. Keep it up NP, Stay The Course and you'll guarantee our next President will be a Democrat and that the Congress will be Democratic for years to come.

How do you think your point of view will affect the next Supreme Court appointment? That's a very cool thought if you're a Democrat...it will insure decades more of women's rights and freedoms that the Bushie's have been trying to take away from all of us these last 6 years.

 

[Navy Pride]

Sadly you will just never understand the reality of this war. Support the mission? What is that mission NP? As Bush says, "Victory"? It is a FAILED mission by anyone's standards (i.e. Rumsfeld getting fired).

Why don't you try to actually educate yourself and read STATE OF DENIAL and then we can talk, OK? It's extremely revealing as to the utter incompetence of the Bush Administration in managing this war...one that should never have been started, one that never had a plan, one that cannot be won.

None of that does not mean that I do not support our troops! I do! I want them home ASAP with their families so they're no longer in harm's way. Sadly there's no simple way to get them home because of the utter quagmire that Bush has created.

You want disrespect for our troops? Read STATE OF DENIAL and open your eyes to how fuc ked up the entire management of this war has been. You can throw out all the stupid stereotypes you want about Democrats not supporting our troops but that opinion is full of sh!t and nothing more than a losing talking point tossed out by Bush and talk radio. Keep it up NP, Stay The Course and you'll guarantee our next President will be a Democrat and that the Congress will be Democratic for years to come.

How do you think your point of view will affect the next Supreme Court appointment? That's a very cool thought if you're a Democrat...it will insure decades more of women's rights and freedoms that the Bushie's have been trying to take away from all of us these last 6 years.

I notice you did not even mention the traitorous comments your leaders made against our great military....what else is new?:roll: