• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No, it was NOT a mixed message

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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
 
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

Enjoy it while you can, adam. Reality is about to set in.

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.
 
Enjoy it while you can, adam. Reality is about to set in.

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.

And if my aunt had a penis and testicles, she'd be my uncle.
 
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.
 
Enjoy it while you can, adam. Reality is about to set in.

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.

If they stayed home or voted 3rd party how does that equate to a win for Romney?....your assumption has no weight on Romney's loss and is just that...an assumption.
 
Obama's policy was and is clear: raise taxes on the rich, invest in infrastructure, demilitarize into a prosperous peace economy.

He won by a landslide. That's the mandate. The fact that some tea baggers in trailer parks got enough obstructionist conservatives to occupy Congress doens't change that. Now Obama needs to bludgeon bash and smash the tea partiers until they submit.
 
Only AdamT would start a thread declaring that a 50% win equates to a 100% mandate.

In fact, a 50% win inherently means there is no mandate whatsoever.
 
Enjoy it while you can, adam. Reality is about to set in.

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.

If a frog had wings then its landings would be much softer. ;-)
 
Obama's policy was and is clear: raise taxes on the rich, invest in infrastructure, demilitarize into a prosperous peace economy.

He won by a landslide. That's the mandate. The fact that some tea baggers in trailer parks got enough obstructionist conservatives to occupy Congress doens't change that. Now Obama needs to bludgeon bash and smash the tea partiers until they submit.

A 50% "landslide." :lamo
 
Actually, AdamT's message is MORE EVIL than Romney's "47%".

AdamT claims that 48%! of people, indeed 50%! of all Americans could be totally ignored and not represented in Washington now.

And I think that, again, is exactly what Obama will attempt to do. Tell half of all Americans "FU!"
 
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

You can make that exact argument to show how slight the Obama win was. Take a look at the totals on some of those swings states. The only sort of mandate the president gained this election was the burden of the promises he made to win it.
 
Actually, AdamT's message is MORE EVIL than Romney's "47%".

AdamT claims that 48%! of people, indeed 50%! of all Americans could be totally ignored and not represented in Washington now.

And I think that, again, is exactly what Obama will attempt to do. Tell half of all Americans "FU!"

Hi, I'm a person who actually has no representation in Washington. Not being represented does not come from losing a vote, it comes from not being able to vote in the first place. You are represented because your voice was part of the decision, EVEN IF YOU WERE OUTVOTED. Is there a voting representative from your district? Yes? Then you're represented. Was your county and state factored into the presidential election? Then you're represented. Losing an election does not mean you're not represented. Not getting to vote does.
 
A 50% "landslide." :lamo

Over 300 electoral college votes is a landslide. He did it twice. Bush never even got 300. And of course Bush lost the popular vote to Gore.

You do realize that we elect president by an electoral college, don't you?

NEXT!
 
Over 300 electoral college votes is a landslide. He did it twice. Bush never even got 300. And of course Bush lost the popular vote to Gore.

You do realize that we elect president by an electoral college, don't you?

NEXT!

See AdamT's argument. And no, not a landslide, nor was Bush ever the poster boy for landslides.
 
See AdamT's argument. And no, not a landslide, nor was Bush ever the poster boy for landslides.

Point is, 300+ electoral votes IS a landslide, and Obama's agenda is and was clear: higher taxes on the rich, investment in infrastructure and productivity, ending Bush's military economy of waste and joblessness.

Obama's got the mandate. Now he has to fight for it against Tea Party Occupied Congress.
 
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

Gerrymandering is never a one sided thing AdamT. If there is gerrymandering in the electoral process, I will bet my marbles that the democrats are in it too. They too want to be "safe" in elections.
 
AdamT claims that 48%! of people, indeed 50%! of all Americans could be totally ignored and not represented in Washington now.

Bush and the right told the other half to **** off. Sounds like you just have sour grapes in your mouth. That's why the duopoly of the Dem/Rep is such a threat to America. They only care about THEIR side.
 
Gerrymandering is never a one sided thing AdamT. If there is gerrymandering in the electoral process, I will bet my marbles that the democrats are in it too. They too want to be "safe" in elections.

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

No such thing. They have to be programmed by people, whom are partisan by nature.
 
Point is, 300+ electoral votes IS a landslide, and Obama's agenda is and was clear: higher taxes on the rich, investment in infrastructure and productivity, ending Bush's military economy of waste and joblessness.

Obama's got the mandate. Now he has to fight for it against Tea Party Occupied Congress.

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate.

Pretty easy to get a "landslide" under these circumstances, by your own definition of landslide;

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.

Considering the popular vote was a a margin of less than 3million, I would say "landslide" is not a way that anybody, who has their head in reality, would describe Obama's electoral vote win.
 
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

There's no more such a thing as a "popular vote" for the House as there is for the President. :lamo

It is HILARIOUS that you'd argue otherwise, and that you'd argue "popular vote" to claim he has a mandate AT ALL when his vote was a hair over 50%.

Whining about "gerrymandering" is no different from whining that all 55 of CA's electoral votes go to Obama.

But it's amazing how one can be a sore winner and a sore loser at the same time.
 
And if my aunt had a penis and testicles, she'd be my uncle.
Not if the penis was coming out her left ear and the testicles were attached to her right ankle.**

Even if the 3 −4 million voters that Bobcat imagines did actually exist, they wouldn’t have been anyplace that would have been consequential to the Electoral Vote count.


** Please say I’m right. Please. ;)
 
Point is, 300+ electoral votes IS a landslide, and Obama's agenda is and was clear: higher taxes on the rich, investment in infrastructure and productivity, ending Bush's military economy of waste and joblessness.

Obama's got the mandate. Now he has to fight for it against Tea Party Occupied Congress.

Out of 538, no it's not. There's no mandate other than for Obama to keep his promises. We'll see if that works out better than last time for his voters.
 
Back
Top Bottom