Will This Election be a Mandate for Any Policy?[W:6]

After the election, the winner will proclaim that he has a mandate for whatever policy he proposes. But will that be true? When you have the President holding off on any real proposals until after the election. Even to the point of telling Russia to be patient. And with Romney not being specific about what deductions he would close to pay for his tax rate reductions, will the public really have voted based on issues. Or has this race devolved into a "You can't trust that Guy".

Perhaps the debates will bring out some specifics. Or if the race looks like one side is pulling away perhaps the other side, in desperation will actually tell us how they plan to govern.

Thoughts?

Re: Will This Election be a Mandate for Any Policy?

washunut said:

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Just this ...

The only POTUS I remember screaming about mandate was Bubba. (Yes I have alzheimers)

He got 43% of the vote, controlled both Houses, and during his first two years only managed to give us the largest tax increase (up to that time) that this country ever had. Even with both Houses, he couldn't get Hillarycare. 1994 the Republicans took over the House (where the actual spending bills start) and balanced the budget, which Bubba promptly stepped up to center stage and took credit for same (ignoring his first two years of failure).

A L

Re: Will This Election be a Mandate for Any Policy?

Another Lurker said:

Just this ...

The only POTUS I remember screaming about mandate was Bubba. (Yes I have alzheimers)

He got 43% of the vote, controlled both Houses, and during his first two years only managed to give us the largest tax increase (up to that time) that this country ever had. Even with both Houses, he couldn't get Hillarycare. 1994 the Republicans took over the House (where the actual spending bills start) and balanced the budget, which Bubba promptly stepped up to center stage and took credit for same (ignoring his first two years of failure).

A L

Click to expand...

Let's me see if I understand what you're saying. The House is responsible for balancing the budget and spending? So why is Obama getting blamed for the debt going up during his administration?

Re: Will This Election be a Mandate for Any Policy?

Hairytic said:

Let's me see if I understand what you're saying. The House is responsible for balancing the budget and spending? So why is Obama getting blamed for the debt going up during his administration?

Click to expand...

Might have something to do with the things the Dims passed and the Kenyan signed. Oh, and for your information, I suggest you re-read my post. You are trying to place YOUR words in my mouth.

A L

Re: Will This Election be a Mandate for Any Policy?

Another Lurker said:

Might have something to do with the things the Dims passed and the Kenyan signed. Oh, and for your information, I suggest you re-read my post. You are trying to place YOUR words in my mouth.

A L

Click to expand...

It is people like you that turn me off of the republican party. Your bitterness shows and your hate and anger that your man lost the last presidential election runs deep. The American isn't going to destroy this country, Clinton didn't destroy this country, no one is going to take away your right to worship as you see fit. Relax, get some help, and grow up.

Re: Will This Election be a Mandate for Any Policy?

Moderator's Warning:

Baiting, personal attacks, and uncivil posts need to end.

Re: Will This Election be a Mandate for Any Policy?

This election will be a referendum on the Left Wing Agenda.

washunut said:

After the election, the winner will proclaim that he has a mandate for whatever policy he proposes. But will that be true? When you have the President holding off on any real proposals until after the election. Even to the point of telling Russia to be patient. And with Romney not being specific about what deductions he would close to pay for his tax rate reductions, will the public really have voted based on issues. Or has this race devolved into a "You can't trust that Guy".

Perhaps the debates will bring out some specifics. Or if the race looks like one side is pulling away perhaps the other side, in desperation will actually tell us how they plan to govern.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Lets say Obama wins. IN '08 he got 53% of the vote when he had everything going for him. If he pulls off a win in '12 he will be lucky to get 51%. That is hardly a mandate. But then again, a mandate for what? What exactly is Obama running on? And if republicans regain control of the House, which it seems they will, wont they claim a mandate to oppose anything Obama proposes? Essentially an Obama win is just continuation of what we curently have which is gridlock. Not that I oppose gridlock, but an election that doesnt alter the current staus quo, is basically a mandate for government inaction. The only way Obama can claim a mandate is to get a higher percentage of the vote this time than he got last time. And that is not going to happen.

If Romney wins he will have a certain ability to claim a mandate, if for no other reason than to reverse some or all of what Obama has done. But if he squeeks out a victory, he wont be able to claim any real broad mandate for action either. As for getting things done, Romney has the advantae since he has shown a willingness to work with the other side, where Obama has shown no such inclination.

Fletch said:

Essentially an Obama win is just continuation of what we curently have which is gridlock.

Click to expand...

It's more than gridlock. The EO's that the Kenyan will put out will be the envy of and dictator, past or present.

A L

Fletch wrote

Romney has the advantae since he has shown a willingness to work with the other side, where Obama has shown no such inclination.

Click to expand...

The problem for Romney lies in the fact that he is now disavowing every one of those earlier bipartisan actions - which a few people have noticed

Romney Can't Run From Himself

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have one big problem that must have Barack Obama walking on air: They're running against themselves.

How do you win an election when you are trying to distance yourself from . . . yourself?

Click to expand...

Romney's Supreme Burden

Jeers to Mitt Romney! As the presumptive Republican nominee for president, he stood in front of the Capitol just after the Supreme Court ruling on Thursday and promised to fight in the coming campaign against one big idea — his own.

Now Romney has no choice but to run against himself. It was Rick Santorum who put it in blunt political terms during the Republican primary. Romney, he said, “is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama” because he is the intellectual godfather of the most consequential act of the Obama presidency.

Click to expand...

Fletch said:

Essentially an Obama win is just continuation of what we curently have which is gridlock. Not that I oppose gridlock, but an election that doesnt alter the current staus quo, is basically a mandate for government inaction.

Click to expand...

So an effective political strategy would be to cause gridlock when your guy isn't president. As the liberal media would no doubt say, hold the political process hostage?

vvx said:

So an effective political strategy would be to cause gridlock when your guy isn't president. As the liberal media would no doubt say, hold the political process hostage?

Click to expand...

Hold the process hostage to what? The president isnt king. Congress is an equal branch. If nothing is getting done because opposite parties hold the two different branches, who is holding the process hostage? The president or the congress?

Fletch said:

Hold the process hostage to what? The president isnt king. Congress is an equal branch. If nothing is getting done because opposite parties hold the two different branches, who is holding the process hostage? The president or the congress?

Click to expand...

The problem isn't the president, that's not why there's gridlock. The president is basically irrelevant, other than using your power to get the president that you want. Use your power in congress to prevent anything from happening. Stop votes from happening. Spend your time voting for things that you know will never become law. And then when it's election time say something like "Essentially an [whoever] win is just a continuation of what we currently have which is gridlock." Seems there's lots of ways to stop anything from happening in congress, it's a game either party could play.

Unlikely. I can't point to any specific policy where Obama could claim an obvious mandate if he wins, and Romney has no policies.