No, it was NOT a mixed message

[Aunt Spiker]

I've seen some conservatives arguing that Obama doesn't have any kind of mandate because the voters really came down for gridlock: they voted for Obama, but they also voted for a Republican majority in the House.

There's just one problem with that argument -- it isn't true. In fact it appears that there were more votes cast for Democrats in the House races than there were for Republicans, albeit by a very small percentage. The reason more Republicans won seats is that districts are gerrymandered to produce the desired result. Because there are 30 Republican governors to 20 Democratic governors, the result of that gerrymandering favored the Republicans.

This is the congressional equivalent of a president winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote.

Why Americans Actually Voted For A Democratic House | ThinkProgress

That's a hefty charge - you really think that gerrymandering was done so far across the entire nation that it really won the majority?

Gerrymandering is illegal - so I doubt it's taken place to such a wide degree as is being accused.

 

[poweRob]

This is exactly why we should have a nonpartisan computer program draw up the districts every ten years.

**** that. **** districts. Have a house that is a parliament where each state is the same amount of reps but they are elected proportionally. This puts Libertarians and Greens and parties other than just dems and repubs in the House and there are no districts to be gerrymandered and the people are represented far more accurately.

 

[roflpublican]

**** that. **** districts. Have a house that is a parliament where each state is the same amount of reps but they are elected proportionally. This puts Libertarians and Greens and parties other than just dems and repubs in the House and there are no districts to be gerrymandered and the people are represented far more accurately.

i think you're missing the point that there's a very good reason we only let two parties contest the vote: illusion of choice, one big agenda. so, great idea, but not gonna happen because trillions of dollars back the status quo.

 

[Zyphlin]

What a stupid comment to make and then leave out the margin of victory. The margin of victory in the popular vote was almost exactly the same as it was in 2004 ... when Bush and the Republicans declared that they had a mandate. Obama's electoral college win was significantly bigger than Bush's, edging him by almost 50 EVs.

I didn't agree with the notion of a "mandate" in 2004 either, but lets look honestly at this...ESPECIALLY since you started this thread relating the other houses to part of a determination of a mandate or not.


Comparing 2004 to 2012 in a variety of factors (assuming Florida is for Obama here). Bold is who I'd view as the winner in each category.

Flat Factors 04 to 12
Electoral Bodies Won ---> B 31 / O 27 = Bush +4
Electoral Votes Won ---> B 286 / O 332 = Obama +46
Popular Vote Margin ---> B 2.5% / O 2.5% = Even
Total Votes ---> B 62,040,610 / O 61,112,143 = Bush +925,467

Improvement Factors from their first election to second
Electoral Bodies Change --> B +1 / O -2 = Bush
Electoral Vote Change ---> B +15 / O -32 = Bush
Popular Margin Change ---> B +2.96% / O -4.7% = Bush
Total Vote Change ---> B +11,584,608 / O -8,344,754 = Bush

Other Bodies of Government Factors
Senate Control ---> B Party / O Party = Tie
Senate Gains ---> B +4 / O +2 = Bush +2
House Control ---> B Party / O Opposition = Bush
House Gains ---> B +3 / O TBD = TBD

My ultimate conclusion...NEITHER particularly had a "Mandate" in their second election.

Bush CLEARLY was more successful in terms of gaining favor of the American People electorally by his second term than Obama was. However, Bush first election was far worse results than Obama's first one, so he had less distance to go to make significant improvement. His party was more successful, in terms of a "mandate" for the PARTIES message, by winning all three major bodies and gaining in both of the Congressional chambers.

Obama was CLEARLY more successful his second go round in terms of the factor that actually decides elections, the electoral college, then Bush's second. However, Bush captured more states of the country than Obama during their respective second terms AND Bush managed to get move outright votes for him than there was votes for Obama.

I don't think Bush in 2004 had a "mandate", though I think the Republicans had a better argument to leverage their political capital better than the Democrats have this go round...but nothing close to a mandate. I DEFINITELY don't think Obama or the Democrats have a "Mandate" this time out, and I think they have significantly LESS electoral leverage this time than they had in 2008.

I would say that you'd at least have an argument perhaps for a "mandate" in 2008. It was the most votes for a President in the countries history by around 7 million, had him winning more than 2/3rds of all the electoral votes, and had the highest popular vote percentage in 20 years. On top of that you had significant democratic gains and control in both chambers of congress. You could at least make a reasonable, if still not clear cut, argument in 2008 for a "mandate". I think you're really hard up to do that this time...ESPECIALLY considering many democrats scoffed at the notion that Bush's 2004 election was a "mandate".

 

[Kandahar]

**** that. **** districts. Have a house that is a parliament where each state is the same amount of reps but they are elected proportionally. This puts Libertarians and Greens and parties other than just dems and repubs in the House and there are no districts to be gerrymandered and the people are represented far more accurately.

I would be fine with that too. But I suspect that many people would find interacting with a state bureaucrat more difficult than a more local bureaucrat...especially in the larger states like California and Texas. One advantage to having districts is that they tend to represent fewer people, and therefore know their constituents better. That isn't always the case, but I think it would be a hard sell to change it. I think most people could get behind nonpartisan redistricting measures though.

 

[Zyphlin]

Mandate??? hardly. if the 3 or 4 million republicans/conservatives/libertarians that either stayed home or voted 3rd party had voted for Romney, you would have lost and obama would be nothing but a mark in history books. Those are the people that elected obama, and they have to live with their decisions.

To be fair, that 3 or 4 million would've only mattered if they were distributed across Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and one more swing state.

If they were split between something like Texas, Georgia, Florida, and California then they would've affected the popular vote but Obama would've still won.

 

[Harshaw]

What a stupid comment to make and then leave out the margin of victory. The margin of victory in the popular vote was almost exactly the same as it was in 2004 ... when Bush and the Republicans declared that they had a mandate. Obama's electoral college win was significantly bigger than Bush's, edging him by almost 50 EVs.

Always making it about Bush. I didn't say anything Bush. Bush didn't have a mandate in 2004. Show me where I ever said that. Ever. (Guess what? I never did.)

So, this is simply ANOTHER stupid comment on your part.

Nice googling, but the useage was correct. :lamo

Like I need to Google "whence." And your usage (not "useage") was, in effect "from from where." :lamo

Perhaps that is how you've incorrectly understood it, but that is not what it means.

No, that's just the way it's been used. :shrug:

A mandate is something that the winner of an election always has to move elements of his agenda on which he campaigned. That is distinguished from things that were NOT promised in the campaign. The winner can't claim that he has a mandate to push NEW agenda items because the people had no knowledge of them when they cast their ballots. That's what mandate means in this context. And, as now, there is the separate question of how STRONG the mandate is, which is a function of the size of the victory and the centrality of the issue to the candidate's campaign.

Oddly, your Webster's definition didn't say any of this.

No, I wasn't. Stop with your annoying habit of telling other people what they are arguing.

Weird; here's what I said you said:

No, you were arguing that more overall Democrat votes for reps showed there wasn't a Republican congressional mandate.

And here's what you said:

I've seen some conservatives arguing that Obama doesn't have any kind of mandate because the voters really came down for gridlock: they voted for Obama, but they also voted for a Republican majority in the House.

There's just one problem with that argument -- it isn't true. In fact it appears that there were more votes cast for Democrats in the House races than there were for Republicans, albeit by a very small percentage.

So, how did I get it wrong?

You don't even know what a mandate is, for ****s sake

:shrug: You keep changing what you say a mandate is. First, you cite Webster's. Then, you come up with something of an unknown source.

And you aren't even consistent when you cite Webster's.

Your words:

Mandate simply means, "an authorization to act given to a representative." As a rule the winner of the election has a mandate to carry out his or her platform.

Webster's:

an authorization to act given to a representative

So, anyone elected has a mandate.

THEN you say:

IMO the only time the winner of an election really has no mandate is when he loses the popular vote.

Why would that matter, given your definitions? He's duly elected; he has full authorization to execute the office.

What? It has something to do with the number of people who voted for him? Hmmmm.

and you apparently don't even know that people vote for the president.

I said fully what I was referring to, and you KNOW it's correct. :roll:

Yes, I agree that each winner has his or her own mandate which has to be considered against the backdrop of the overall campaign.

I don't know what that means, but it sounds like "give the Democrats what they want even though you were elected to be a Republican." If not, explain.

 

[Bronson]

I've seen some conservatives arguing that Obama doesn't have any kind of mandate because the voters really came down for gridlock: they voted for Obama, but they also voted for a Republican majority in the House.

There's just one problem with that argument -- it isn't true. In fact it appears that there were more votes cast for Democrats in the House races than there were for Republicans, albeit by a very small percentage. The reason more Republicans won seats is that districts are gerrymandered to produce the desired result. Because there are 30 Republican governors to 20 Democratic governors, the result of that gerrymandering favored the Republicans.

This is the congressional equivalent of a president winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote.

Why Americans Actually Voted For A Democratic House | ThinkProgress

We know what you stand for. it's not a secret.

Obama Claus is coming to town. We get it.

I'm really not sure why anyone is surprised. Biden said it during the campaign "Gonna put ya'll back in chains"

Romney is going to take away the EBT Cards and the Obamaphones. He sucks. BAD. Vote Obama to keep the gravy from his stash flowing.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I want to know where his stupid ass went all of a sudden instead of pounding hte pavement like he promised he would do to take care of the hurricane victims.

I still have friend in Red Hook I haven't heard from at all since it happened - I really still don't care too much about the election. I keep hoping to get a text message or an email while piddling away on the forum.

 

[AdamT]

I didn't agree with the notion of a "mandate" in 2004 either, but lets look honestly at this...ESPECIALLY since you started this thread relating the other houses to part of a determination of a mandate or not.


Comparing 2004 to 2012 in a variety of factors (assuming Florida is for Obama here). Bold is who I'd view as the winner in each category.

Flat Factors 04 to 12
Electoral Bodies Won ---> B 31 / O 27 = Bush +4
Electoral Votes Won ---> B 286 / O 332 = Obama +46
Popular Vote Margin ---> B 2.5% / O 2.5% = Even
Total Votes ---> B 62,040,610 / O 61,112,143 = Bush +925,467

Improvement Factors from their first election to second
Electoral Bodies Change --> B +1 / O -2 = Bush
Electoral Vote Change ---> B +15 / O -32 = Bush
Popular Margin Change ---> B +2.96% / O -4.7% = Bush
Total Vote Change ---> B +11,584,608 / O -8,344,754 = Bush

Other Bodies of Government Factors
Senate Control ---> B Party / O Party = Tie
Senate Gains ---> B +4 / O +2 = Bush +2
House Control ---> B Party / O Opposition = Bush
House Gains ---> B +3 / O TBD = TBD

My ultimate conclusion...NEITHER particularly had a "Mandate" in their second election.

Bush CLEARLY was more successful in terms of gaining favor of the American People electorally by his second term than Obama was. However, Bush first election was far worse results than Obama's first one, so he had less distance to go to make significant improvement. His party was more successful, in terms of a "mandate" for the PARTIES message, by winning all three major bodies and gaining in both of the Congressional chambers.

Obama was CLEARLY more successful his second go round in terms of the factor that actually decides elections, the electoral college, then Bush's second. However, Bush captured more states of the country than Obama during their respective second terms AND Bush managed to get move outright votes for him than there was votes for Obama.

I don't think Bush in 2004 had a "mandate", though I think the Republicans had a better argument to leverage their political capital better than the Democrats have this go round...but nothing close to a mandate. I DEFINITELY don't think Obama or the Democrats have a "Mandate" this time out, and I think they have significantly LESS electoral leverage this time than they had in 2008.

I would say that you'd at least have an argument perhaps for a "mandate" in 2008. It was the most votes for a President in the countries history by around 7 million, had him winning more than 2/3rds of all the electoral votes, and had the highest popular vote percentage in 20 years. On top of that you had significant democratic gains and control in both chambers of congress. You could at least make a reasonable, if still not clear cut, argument in 2008 for a "mandate". I think you're really hard up to do that this time...ESPECIALLY considering many democrats scoffed at the notion that Bush's 2004 election was a "mandate".

Obviously you are using Harshaw's definition of mandate, meaning not just a win but a MAJOR win. I think that is clearly wrong. Traditionally the winner of the presidential election has had a 100 day honeymoon period during which time much of the newly elected president's agenda -- or mandate -- can be moved without the usual partisan rancor.

"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."

As he had done in his victory speech Wednesday, Bush spoke of building a bipartisan consensus and reaching out to the 48 percent of Americans who voted against him. Yet he made plain that he had no intention of moderating his agenda to reach that goal.

"When you win, there is ... a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view," Bush said. "And that's what I intend to tell Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the president; now let's work."

Read more: Bush claims mandate, sets 2nd-term goals / 'I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it' - SFGate

Of course there was tremendous ill-will against Bush over the Iraq War, so that didn't work out so well, and there's tremendous ill-will against Obama ... for not apparent reason.

 

[Zyphlin]

Obviously you are using Harshaw's definition of mandate, meaning not just a win but a MAJOR win. I think that is clearly wrong. Traditionally the winner of the presidential election has had a 100 day honeymoon period during which time much of the newly elected president's agenda -- or mandate -- can be moved without the usual partisan rancor.

If that's Harshaw's definition, I guess I'm using something similar...yes.

I go back to the fact that i don't believe that Bush had a "mandate" after 2004 either.

I do think all presidents have political capital following an election. I don't believe the amount and strength of that political capital is equal in all instances.

 

[AdamT]

If that's Harshaw's definition, I guess I'm using something similar...yes.

I go back to the fact that i don't believe that Bush had a "mandate" after 2004 either.

I do think all presidents have political capital following an election. I don't believe the amount and strength of that political capital is equal in all instances.

I think we're just arguing semantics; I don't think that a mandate is anything but political capital. I've certainly never suggested that it's a blank check or anything like it.

 

[Zyphlin]

I think we're just arguing semantics; I don't think that a mandate is anything but political capital. I've certainly never suggested that it's a blank check or anything like it.

I gotcha. I guess what it comes down to is just a disagreement of what that political capital is worth really. Which is an understandable disagreement.

I don't deny that Obama has Political Capital due to his winning. I disagree with the notion that he should have 100 days to have his agenda moved ahead without much opposition. I would say that, based on the score of these results, if his "agenda" that he moves ahead is anywhere close to containing a fair amount of honest and forthright compromise (but ultimately is going to be more favorable for him and his side than the other), then that honeymoon period should probably occur in terms of the Republicans treating him in a similar fashion. But I don't believe the capital a win like this gives is enough to warrant a "honeymoon" period that would allow for a staunchly democratic focused agenda to be pushed for the 100 days with little opposition.

 

[AdamT]

I gotcha. I guess what it comes down to is just a disagreement of what that political capital is worth really. Which is an understandable disagreement.

I don't deny that Obama has Political Capital due to his winning. I disagree with the notion that he should have 100 days to have his agenda moved ahead without much opposition. I would say that, based on the score of these results, if his "agenda" that he moves ahead is anywhere close to containing a fair amount of honest and forthright compromise (but ultimately is going to be more favorable for him and his side than the other), then that honeymoon period should probably occur in terms of the Republicans treating him in a similar fashion. But I don't believe the capital a win like this gives is enough to warrant a "honeymoon" period that would allow for a staunchly democratic focused agenda to be pushed for the 100 days with little opposition.

I think we're in general agreement, but you would probably take issue with this: I think that Republicans should drop their opposition to the expiration of the top Bush tax cuts, provided that Obama agrees to spending cuts at least 3x as large. Ending the top tax cuts was a central plank not just of this campaign, but also the '08 campaign and it's also gotten strong public support in many polls over the last several years. If Republicans would agree to that one thing I think it would completely change the tone over the next four years.

 

[IndepCentristMA]

Not shocking.... libs mistook their mandate last election... which is what lead to the Tea Party's success, and turned control of the House against them, where it remained...

about 50% of the 60% of the people who bothered to vote means there was a mandate of at most 30% of the people over 29% of the people... woo hoo... let's drastically change our society!!!

You know what that sort of majority looks like...

Here it is...

very impressive... I guess the majority of the country really agrees with your viewpoint...

 

[AdamT]

Here's another interesting statistic: if we had had the same vote with the previous set of districts, we would now have a Democratic majority in Congress.

 

[AdamT]

Not shocking.... libs mistook their mandate last election... which is what lead to the Tea Party's success, and turned control of the House against them, where it remained...

about 50% of the 60% of the people who bothered to vote means there was a mandate of at most 30% of the people over 29% of the people... woo hoo... let's drastically change our society!!!

It's funny that Republicans are wanting to harp on a supposedly low turnout, when the truth is that turnout in the last TWO elections has been higher than at any time since the 1968 election.

 

[Dezaad]

He doesn't have a mandate. What he does have is substantive additional leverage. The election has consequences, and they ought to be duly noted, however, even though the EC gave him a clear victory, he still has to keep in mind the 48% in addition to the large number of Republican governors.

It really bugs me when the other side doesn't denounce the hubris of their politicians and pundits. So, here I am declaring that 50 to 53 percent of the vote IS NOT A MANDATE.

I am a solidly left liberal, but this country needs to be governed from the center. The President in particular needs to represent ALL Americans, whatever party he is from.

Of course, Republicans think that anyone who disagrees with them even .000001% is a screaming liberal, so I honestly don't know how we can ever agree on a compromise.

 

[Mycroft]

It really bugs me when the other side doesn't denounce the hubris of their politicians and pundits. So, here I am declaring that 50 to 53 percent of the vote IS NOT A MANDATE.

I am a solidly left liberal, but this country needs to be governed from the center. The President in particular needs to represent ALL Americans, whatever party he is from.

Of course, Republicans think that anyone who disagrees with them even .000001% is a screaming liberal, so I honestly don't know how we can ever agree on a compromise.

Oh, the Republicans can compromise.

Boehner and Obama had a pretty good deal back in 2011...until Obama screwed the pooch.

Maybe they can work something out again...but that means Obama will have to put a leash on Reid. That may prove to be beyond his capabilities.

 

[Zyphlin]

Here's another interesting statistic: if we had had the same vote with the previous set of districts, we would now have a Democratic majority in Congress.

Which is irrelevant if because you're basically removing gerrymandering of one time and replacing it with the gerrymandering if another and trying to say "ha!"

It's not like the districts weren't previously gerrymandered.

 

[Zyphlin]

It's funny that Republicans are wanting to harp on a supposedly low turnout, when the truth is that turnout in the last TWO elections has been higher than at any time since the 1968 election.

Only if you are using total numbers, which is a poor indicator, rather than percentage I believe.

 

[AdamT]

Only if you are using total numbers, which is a poor indicator, rather than percentage I believe.

No, I'm talking about percentage, but the numbers are still preliminary and it may turn out that 2004 had a higher turnout. Turnout was also suppressed this year by Sandy.

Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections

2012 election voter turnout shaping up to be lower than in 2008 | OregonLive.com

 

[apdst]

I've seen some conservatives arguing that Obama doesn't have any kind of mandate because the voters really came down for gridlock: they voted for Obama, but they also voted for a Republican majority in the House.

There's just one problem with that argument -- it isn't true. In fact it appears that there were more votes cast for Democrats in the House races than there were for Republicans, albeit by a very small percentage. The reason more Republicans won seats is that districts are gerrymandered to produce the desired result. Because there are 30 Republican governors to 20 Democratic governors, the result of that gerrymandering favored the Republicans.

This is the congressional equivalent of a president winning the Electoral College but losing the popular vote.

Why Americans Actually Voted For A Democratic House | ThinkProgress

Is that the excuse? :rofl

 

[apdst]

It really bugs me when the other side doesn't denounce the hubris of their politicians and pundits. So, here I am declaring that 50 to 53 percent of the vote IS NOT A MANDATE.

I am a solidly left liberal, but this country needs to be governed from the center. The President in particular needs to represent ALL Americans, whatever party he is from.

Of course, Republicans think that anyone who disagrees with them even .000001% is a screaming liberal, so I honestly don't know how we can ever agree on a compromise.

Well, Obama ain't gona do that. :rofl

 

[ashurbanipal]

I am a solidly left liberal, but this country needs to be governed from the center. The President in particular needs to represent ALL Americans, whatever party he is from.

Subscription to this particular ideal is one of the great failings of the left in the last 80-odd years. Here's what history says: if you have political opponents, and you want to win, you must beat them down savagely and mercilessly. And when they are down, you kick their faces into the mud until they have to go to Australia to find their two front teeth. If they could walk, because you've also got to cut off their legs. And while you're at it, cut off their hands and their genitals, so they can neither wield weapons nor make another generation like them. Better yet, just kill them and use their bodies to fertilize your crops. And don't hesitate to do the same to anyone who ever even mentions your former opponents' ideals in passing. Conservatives, as you note, are not interested in compromise in any shape or form. Liberals shouldn't be either. When Obama was elected with solid majorities in both houses of Congress, he and his party should have recognized this fact. That was an opportunity to end the Republican party forever, and leave conservatives with probably three or four different political parties that could not, for a generation, ever gain a plurality.

Why didn't it happen? It didn't happen because Conservatives recognize one political truth better than Liberals since Roosevelt--namely, that politics is about survival, and survival is something you have to fight for. Ever since roughly 8000 B.C., other human beings have been our biggest survival threat. Conservatives understood how to fight for their survival. In fact, I would argue that one way to understand the history of the U.S. since about 1960 is as the story of rich conservatives fighting for their survival against basically everyone else (including poor and middle class conservatives). And if democrats don't recognize this point now, we're in for another long four years.