Mandate

[scarlet_woman156k]

Excuse my political ignorance, but how is winning the popular vote by a margin of about 3% translate into a mandate for Bush?

It's even more confusing when one realizes that US population is roughly 294,688,125 and Bush recieved roughly 59 million vs. Kerry's 55 million.

That leaves more than half the US not giving an opinion on the election...

miyamoto: please keep in mind that 298 million people in this country are not all able to vote (i.e., not 18 years of age).

[jeff]

He behaved as a President should.

Sounds like a cigarette slogan, doesn't it? (Except, you got the grammar right, and Winston didn't)

And, as I said before, when Clinton tried to have pursue his agenda, his opponents howled that it was inappropriate because he didn't have the people's mandate to do so. Either its valid in both cases or in neither. In 2000, as mrbiggs alluded, he didn't have any such mandate. Now, in 2004, Bush clearly has much more latitude to define and execute his agenda based on a people's mandate.

To Inq's point about the supine behavior of Congress and how the President has nothing to do with the tax policy keith refers to, I quote Inq from the "New Information" thread: "the Bush tax cuts, insofar as they were designed to stimulate the economy, were a bad idea" also "Bush's renewed effort to cut taxes". Kudos for the conclusions and openmindedness, and I emphasize that these are clearly referred to as Bush's initiatives. I don't recall any murmurs of discontent from the R side of the House or Senate, either.

[grotto]

Wait, now, you haven't been paying attention. The President controls the Congress, they all do exactly what he wants and never demur, they are merely puppets without any mtives or goals or wills of their own. Or at least that seems to be a popular argument hereabouts.

Aww come on now Inq, you know as well as anyone here the GOP has a unity of purpose the Dem's could only dream about. They are not Puppets by any stretch, but they all read from the same hymnal, just like different songs better than others.

[miyamoto]

I was responding to miyamoto et al, who was curious about the election return and how 3% can be called a mandate. I want to know if that same reasoning carried over to a President, I assume, they supported.

Why would you assume that I supported Clinton's mandate or even Clinton in general?

The results of the election are interesting to me when reading the media reports. They talk about how the country is going republican, and all the red states. How the democrats need to do some soul searching.

To me it seem ridiculous. It was a close election. Very close. 136,000 votes close. If Kerry had gotten 136,000 votes in Ohio, he would have won the electoral college votes but lost the popular vote still by 4 million.

Either way, it's not a lot of people. To me, the votes show either voter apathy, or a deeply divided country. Not one united behind Bush.

[Rogue]

My apologies for assuming.

[Inquartata]

your confusing your arguements/arguers - thats Jeff you're looking for.

I know. I was being ironic. We need a tongue-in-cheek gremlin.

[Inquartata]

Sounds like a cigarette slogan, doesn't it? (Except, you got the grammar right, and Winston didn't)

Churchill didn't get his grammar right?

And, as I said before, when Clinton tried to have pursue his agenda, his opponents howled that it was inappropriate because he didn't have the people's mandate to do so. Either its valid in both cases or in neither.

Just as his supporters insisted that he DID have one. Both Time and Newsweek so exulted---you can probably still find the articles with a bit of judicious googling.

So in both cases, there was/is vehement disagreement on the question. And in neither case did/will it matter. Mandates and political capital sound very well to the electorate and the pundits, but the politicians---the one who actually effect or retard policy initiatives---are not blinded by the terminology they themselves invented. They'll go on as before, and the magic wand of "mandate" has no power over them...

To Inq's point about the supine behavior of Congress and how the President has nothing to do with the tax policy

Surely you didn't mistake irony for seriousness?

I emphasize that these are clearly referred to as Bush's initiatives. I don't recall any murmurs of discontent from the R side of the House or Senate, either.

Initiatives, yes. Decrees, no. The Congress is not exactly a rubber-stamp Reichstag, despite the role in which some like to cast Bush. After all, there were initiatives on the other side of the ledger, too: the gay-marriage Amendment "initiative", for example, went nowhere in either House or Senate. Where was the complaisance of the Republican Congress there?

[Inquartata]

Aww come on now Inq, you know as well as anyone here the GOP has a unity of purpose the Dem's could only dream about. They are not Puppets by any stretch, but they all read from the same hymnal, just like different songs better than others.

I'm not sure I believe even this much. Congress was set up specifically to represent parochial and even competing interests, and I think its denizens are much more concerned with those than with cooperation on a national level. As I just noted, the gay-marriage Amendment is one big example of the refractory nature even of a Republican Congress: it was rejected outright in the Republican-controlled House and filibustered to death in the Senate, with a number of Republicans voting against a cloture measure...

[jeff]

Churchill didn't get his grammar right?

The carcinogenic Winston - the name of the cigarette with the slogan "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should" The Winston I respect (Churchill, that is) was a consumer, not a producer of tobacco products; and there's no known record of what he tasted like

Just as his supporters insisted that he DID have one. Both Time and Newsweek so exulted---you can probably still find the articles with a bit of judicious googling. snip!

Yeah, and that didn't make them right then either. I sure didn't think Clinton had much of a mandate, esp in the first term. Any time the Pres gets reelected I think he has some claim to a mandate, since the election has so much an aspect of 'referendum on the incumbent', and I think that applies to Bush today. The question is "how much".

Surely you didn't mistake irony for seriousness?

Moi? Excessively literal minded? That or I was acting as straight man for a joke!

Initiatives, yes. Decrees, no. The Congress is not exactly a rubber-stamp Reichstag, despite the role in which some like to cast Bush. After all, there were initiatives on the other side of the ledger, too: the gay-marriage Amendment "initiative", for example, went nowhere in either House or Senate. Where was the complaisance of the Republican Congress there?

No, I don't think they're the Reichstag or Stalin's Duma either. I think they have similar policies rather than Bush forcing down their unwilling but passive throats. IMO, the gay marriage "initative" was more a political trick to mobilise the base than an attempt to get a Constitutional amendment passed.

[Inquartata]

IMO, the gay marriage "initative" was more a political trick to mobilise the base than an attempt to get a Constitutional amendment passed.

Although given the margins by which all the state versions on the ballots passed, it may now become a serious policy initiative...