Everyone's taliking about a mandate from the voters. I just don't sense it. Some years, maybe. I think it's more likely than the local constituencies just voted for who they liked best, and the Republicans fielded better candidates, or maybe the Democratic Party did a crappy job runnings elections this year. It seems like many candidates portray themselves as moderates, anyway. If so, it mostly boils down to who the voters likes best. I don't think that many voters for Senate races thought about the impact on who controls the Senate; they just voted for who they want to represent their interests. Certainly the voters may have swung a litlle to the right, but again, I don't sense coattails. I could be wrong...
Of course the Republicans have a mandate. THey won everything. Of course, I'm sure they'll exceed their mandate and alienate the electorate like parties always do... but I'll give them their fair due for now. Issue resonance was pretty even statistically. The Democratic leadership is absolutely terrible right now.
I'm with haven...I don't see how it's not a mandate. They might screw it up...but it's clearly a mandate when: 1. you buck history with the party of an incumbent president gaining seats in BOTH houses of congress at the midterm... 2. you now control both the Senate and the House... 3. you control the White House... for 2 years at the very least, they have a mandate...
If they have a mandate, what is the basis in national policy that created it? Is it the way Bush handled the economy? No. Environment? No. Healthcare? No. Crime, Education, Taxes, Defense, Foreign Policy? I cannot put my finger on anything specific that generates much momentum other than Bush has a lot of patriotic support simply because we're under attack. That type of support does not have much legs when it comes to other issues, IMHO.
You can't have a mandate when you only need 10 percent of eligible voters to vote for you to win an election. How is that POSSIBLY a mandate???
define mandate... our goverment has three branches....the legislative and the executive are controlled by republicans...many here would argue the judiciary is as well. as i define mandate, when you hold all the cards because people voted you into office (whether some people didn't vote or not), you have a mandate. and the people who didn't vote really lose my sympathy when they b**** about it.
where are you getting this? the republicans one "up for grabs seats" all night long? they bucked history doing it...are you saying people voted for them despite the fact they don't agree with any of their takes on healthcare, crime, education, taxes, defense, or foreign policy? huh???
Originally posted by MadMax where are you getting this? the republicans one "up for grabs seats" all night long? they bucked history doing it...are you saying people voted for them despite the fact they don't agree with any of their takes on healthcare, crime, education, taxes, defense, or foreign policy? huh??? No. I'm saying that 'mandate', to me, connotes an acceptance of most all of a Party's platform. I don't see that. Possible explanations other than outright mandate: Presidential coat-tails during war; Republican Party's ability to field more desirable local candidates; Republican Party's ability to run better local campaigns. I just don't see what issues in Republican platform swayed the voters across the country; do you?
fair enough...we just see it differently...but ultimately, the republicans have what it takes now to pass legislation they couldn't previously pass. and yes, i do...i think homeland security issues were important to americans...i think they generally like and trust bush...and riding his coattails does provide mandate in my mind.
Originally posted by MadMax fair enough...we just see it differently...but ultimately, the republicans have what it takes now to pass legislation they couldn't previously pass. True. But if they exceed their 'mandate', they will pay the price later. Since I don't believe there is one, it won't take much to cross the line. Then again, if Bush does well against al qaeda... and yes, i do...i think homeland security issues were important to americans...i think they generally like and trust bush...and riding his coattails does provide mandate in my mind. I agree, they like and trust Bush. I think as importantly, they trust Bush as a manager...bringing the right people in to help run the country. I don't think many people have illusions about his intelligence, but sometimes you can succeed just fine with common sense, instinct and honesty.
Issue polling is actually fairly even. Not that people reject the Republican view point... but initial optimism by Democrats was based on early issue-polling that they considered quite favorable. I think the Democrats lost the election because Bush is exceedingly popular, and because the Democratic leadership is horrific. There's enough there to constitute a mandate. Any time you control all 3 branches of government... you have a mandate. And yes, conservatives have a mandate even on the issues. IMO, what happened here, was a case of the electorate saying "yes, we're fairly divided on the issues... but we trust the Republicans more." The trust of the electorate seems a fair basis for doing what you think is best; after all, the electorate has faith in you. Democrats have looked like weasels of late. The essential message this year was: The economy sucks! Enron stinks! The Republicans are in the hands of big business! What? Where are we going to get the money to pay for increases in education spending? Umm... we won't raise taxes! When Clinton was in power, we had a budget surplus, so we'll use the surplus once we're in power again! The Republicans are trying to steal your social security! The economy was good under Clinton!" Bah. The Democrats are no more champions of fiscal responsibility than conservatives. And the claim that conservatives want to screw over seniors is wearing thin. Wanting to increase spending, while weaseling around the question of taxes is lame. There are issues that the Democrats can win on. But they need to be honest, and not attack Republicans disingenuously. The recent campaign was completely inept: no real ideas, a refusal to commit to anything that might be offensive to anybody, and endless Clinton-esque spinning. Had I been a Democratic candidate, I'd have attempted to run on: 1. health care - clearly, there isn't enough support in the US for a national health care system; but there's clear support for reform 2. the environment - start quoting statistics concerning asthma in children, respiratory disease among city dwellers, and death amont the elderly; you'll get support for stricter regulations. Screw global warming - it's not an actionable issue (and everyone here knows I want more done on the issue... but it's not something you can run on) 3. corporate transparency - Democrats hammered Republicans on Enron, etc... but they didn't propose a solution; corporate transparency not only results in less corruption, but there's some evidence that it increases productivity. That would've been the gist of my message.[/quote]
