home

Mandate: Dems Need Not Apply

Digby found this:

Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor: "My sense is that [the winner of the Presidential election] will see this as a mandate on his policies, because [his Party] also did very well in the House of Representatives, did very well in the U.S. Senate, picking up seats in both. He gets over 50 percent . . . And he's going to see this as a mandate in the next four years to try and move the country in the direction he wants it to move. He will try to bring the country together in the short term, but he's going to say, he's got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does."

No, Wolf did NOT say that last night -- he said that after George Bush won the 2004 election by 2 points (Obama will win by 6.5 when all the counting is done), when the GOP won 5 House seats (Dems will win at least 20 this year) and 6 Senate seats (Dems will win at least 6.) You see, mandates are not something Dems win. Look at the gyrations done at Volokh Conspiracy to deny Obama a mandate:

Looking at the exit polls for a random assortment of swing states that went for Obama--Indiana, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and Nevada--is interesting and has implications, I think, for how Obama should govern.

First, it seems pretty clear that whatever this election was, it does not look like a mandate for an aggressive liberal agenda. In Indiana, for instance, voters identified themselves as follows: 44% Moderate, 36% Conservative, 20% Liberal. Virginia was 46% Moderate, 33% Conservative, and 21% Liberal. Florida was 47%M, 35%C, and 19%L. Ohio was 45M-35C-20L. Pennsylvania was 50M-27C-23L. Nevada was 44M-34C-22L. Obama won basically because he won the moderates (he even collected a few conservatives here and there).

That's funny, I do not remember anyone arguing that Bush did not have a mandate for conservatism because of the large number of moderates in the electorate. All of this is silly of course. I am a centrist moderate. Why? Because I say I am. that's what people answering an exit poll do. Hell, that is what Obama did. But I do not get to vote for the "moderate" candidate. I get to vote for the Democratic or the Republican candidate and the ideas they espouse. Voters vote for candidates who lay out their plans. They vote for the plans. And by the way, that means Congressional candidates too. Republicans in Congress have every right, I dare say a duty to fight for the principles they ran on. If they have the political power to shape the agenda. then they should. If they don't, then they don't. that's why we have elections.

Personally, I agreed that Bush won a mandate in 2004 (2000 is another matter). He lost it in 2006 (that Dems were cowards is another matter.) And Obama won a mandate, as well as the Democratic Congress. That's what happens in elections. No one voted to give David Broder a veto over what the government should do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain Team Turning on Palin | Mr. "Center Right" Speaks: "Obama Agrees With Me" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A mandate for what? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:27:12 PM EST
    What is the mandate that Obama is supposed to obey?

    Who can tell what the people are instructing him to do?

    They told the congress in 2006 that they wanted an end to the war.
    As you said, the congress did nothing. In fact they sent more troops instead of withdrawing them.

    Obama, as we all know, championed Lieberman's reelection.
    He voted for FISA. He voted for the renewal of the patriot act. He praised the success of the "surge". He said he wants to withdraw troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. He said he wants to invade and/or bomb Pakistan without the permission of the government. He did nothing to champion the defeat of Proposition 8. And on and on.

    And we voted for him.

    So what is the mandate?

    Given (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by chrisvee on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:06:02 PM EST
    that the exit polls show the overriding issue is the economy, I'd say the mandate is 'fix the economy and save our jobs/life savings'.

    Parent
    Obama's opinion is what matters (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Manuel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:40:46 PM EST
    He is not (publicly at least) acting as if he has a mandate.  He also doesn't appear to be in a hurry to tackle progressive change.  Some have characterized the choice of Emanuel as a signal to liberals.  Asked by Blitzer to prioritize his issues, Obama picked the following.

    1. Stabilize the financial system (including middle class tax cuts and green jobs in a second stimulus package).
    2. Energy independence.
    3. Health care.
    4. Tax Reform.
    5. Education.

    He sounds like in all of these, he is willing to work in a bipartisan fashion.  Think of it as Obama's version of a national unity government.  This isn't a bad plan considering the state of the economy which will probably deteriorate further.  Progressives will have to be patient.  Things will get added in all of these areas that we won't like.  Just keep telling yourself this is much better than the alternative.

    This won't be socialism or even that far from right of center but at least (hopefully) it will be competent.

    An impatient progressive (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:06:25 PM EST
    I noticed with dismay but was not surprised that Obama did not even mention ending the war in Iraq - the issue with which he browbeat everybody else - as one of his priorities.

    We've come nowhere, baby.

    I'm assuming that you have correctly reported his response to Blitzer's question.

    Parent

    This is what I saw on CNN (none / 0) (#14)
    by Manuel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    and what has bee reported (link here).  It isn't fair to Obama to fault him on the omission of Iraq from that list.  Blitzer asked him to put a list in priority order.  Iraq wasn't on Blitzer's list (probably a list of domestic priorites).

    We'll be leaving Iraq (though I am not sure when) but that was going to happen anyway.  In that area, however, the following piece of the article is interesting.

    In the interview with Wolf Blitzer, Obama also declined to commit to negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has become more deadly for US troops than Iraq.


    Parent
    I gathered Obama intends to (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:22:46 PM EST
    move U.S. military out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.  

    Parent
    Meanwhile... (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:32:56 PM EST
    KABUL, Afghanistan -- An airstrike by United States-led forces killed 40 civilians and wounded 28 others at a wedding party in Kandahar Province in southern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Wednesday. The casualties included women and children, the officials said.

    The NYTImes, today.

    Parent

    LAT, today: (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    "We cannot win the fight against terrorism with airstrikes," Karzai told reporters at the presidential palace, speaking hours after Barack Obama won the U.S. presidential election.

    "This is my first demand of the new president of the United States -- to put an end to civilian casualties," the Afghan leader said.

    Meanwhile, in Russia, Putin's replacement is sabre rattling.  

    Parent

    Maybe... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:59:15 PM EST
    but I must admit I think that Bush putting that stupid missile "defense" business in Russia's backyard was a wee bit of a provocation.

    Parent
    I agree that he should not (none / 0) (#21)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:33:24 PM EST
    negotiate with the Taliban. If bad guys exist, then it is the them.

    Parent
    none of those things were FP (none / 0) (#17)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:30:13 PM EST
    so I assume that he was just specking domestic policy.

    Parent
    Who Needs A Mandate? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by santarita on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:42:15 PM EST
    Rove or some other Bush advisor once said that for their purposes they would govern as if they had a mandate even if they won by only one vote more than necessary.  Obama won by a comfortable majority and the people have given him a Congress that should be amenable to what Obama wants.  If Obama were to take a page from the Republican playbook, he'd pursue radical progressive policies without regard to the minority Republicans.  I don't think he'd do that because as a Democrat he plays by the old school rules.

    I concur. (none / 0) (#18)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    I think that Obama can talk us into what he wants to do, the media, and most of the people, will eat it up.

    We haven't had an orator like this in my lifetime.

    Parent

    What - no honeymoon? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM EST
    I expect the sycophantic press to flatter Obama first and then undercut him later.

    As if we needed a reminder (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by BrianJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:19:16 PM EST
    The Dow lost 486 points today.  Millions of people are going to suffer this winter.  They don't get a honeymoon, and neither should any politician.

    Obama should do something similar to what Clinton did in December 1992 and convene a summit to flesh out his plans for January 20.  He needs to be ready to take concrete actions as soon as his hand comes off the Bible.  At the same time, he also needs to talk to Bernanke and representatives of our creditors (PRC, the Gulf states, etc.) to determine what resources he's going to have, or can borrow, to accomplish his goals.

    Parent

    funny. (none / 0) (#16)
    by coigue on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:28:35 PM EST
    Yeah but (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:23:12 PM EST
    there's a big difference between the arguments made by Todd Zywicki, a disingenuous Republican partisan/hack, and the same arguments coming from the media.  I expect Newt Gingrich to argue that Obama doesn't really have a progressive mandate.  But I don't expect (well, I actually do of course) the media to buy his BS.

    This campaign's message (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    has been Change (no more or no less).  That message won.  If that doesn't suggest to you that Obama has a mandate, I don't know what to say.  Anyone who voted for Obama did so knowing the overriding theme of the campaign was that things were going to be different from here on out.  Knowing this, they chose Obama.

    What that mandate involves exactly is unclear.  Obama did not campaign on destroying anything - he did not campaign on an absolute end to Iraq, an end to Medicare, or whatever.  I imagine it is harder to figure out what the mandate involves when your campaign isn't run like a Republican's.  Obama's mandate seems to be for increased government involvement and expansion of social programs.  Healthcare reform.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

    The mandate may be as simple as... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM EST
    don't govern like Bush.  Show some competence in whatever you implement or set out to do.

    For there to be a clear mandate it has to be clear what the right path is for the nation...and honestly, damned if I know.  Things are so f*cked on so many fronts, where do you start?  I'd say get the books in order, shrink the govt. Bush rapidly expanded, end the occupations quickly. Cut out the rotten wood before doing any new renovations.

    Parent

    People just want working solutions (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:32:17 PM EST
    if you do stuff that works, no one will care about the ideology, or not enough people to matter at least.

    Parent
    Until. . . (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:08:37 PM EST
    if you do stuff that works, no one will care about the ideology

    times are good again, and people have the opportunity to sit back, relax, and start getting worked up over stupid social issues.

    Parent

    Didn't Bush crow about all the (none / 0) (#25)
    by imhotep on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 11:35:54 PM EST
    "political capital" he earned in the last election?

    And the right is saying this is not a mandate?

    Huh?

    Parent

    He has a similar mandate as Bush I had (none / 0) (#5)
    by Exeter on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    in 1988... similar margin of victory, both electoral college wise and popular vote wise. Not as strong a mandate as, say, '84, '72, or '64, buy a moderate mandate just the same. It doesn't matter if Dubya claimed a mandate-- it was as ridiculous now as it was then.

    My sense is that Obama will be able to get things through the House, but the Senate will still be a challenge -- Senators don't care about mandates, per se, although there are alot of swingstate GOP Senators up in 2010 and that should bode well for Obama.

    Actually, he's well short (none / 0) (#6)
    by BrianJ on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:37:16 PM EST
    Of Bush '88 (7.7% popular margin of victory, 426 EV).  He's a shade behind both Clinton wins, if you count the two-party vote.  Mandate?  Yes, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves:  a six-point margin won with a 4-to-1 financial advantage isn't a sign of huge strength.

    He probably will get almost anything through the House as long as it doesn't involve shelling out money.  If it does, the Blue Dogs will need to be reckoned with.

    Parent

    Bravo, BTD (none / 0) (#26)
    by Demi Moaned on Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    This says it all.

    We just need to say things like:

    Universal Healthcare is a moderate, centrist policy.

    when people suggest that Obama does not have a mandate for extreme left-wing actions.