No, it was NOT a mixed message

Harshaw · Nov 8, 2012

AdamT said:
Three million isn't exactly a hairs breadth, now is it?

What a stupid thing to say. A raw number like that is meaningless when you're talking about a margin of victory.

From whence do you think the popular useage derives?

(Nice fail at flowery language, as "whence" means "from where.")

It comes from where all common usage comes from -- common usage. Is it your argument that all usage of language starts with the dictionary? :lamo

A mandate simply means that the winner of the election is given some deference ... or at least it used to mean that until about four years ago. How much deference is given is generally a factor of the size of the victory. Thus Obama's middling victory gives him a modest mandate, but it is a mandate nonetheless. By tradition, if the two sides are deadlocked the losing party should give the winning party the benefit of the doubt in the early going. That is generally how it's always worked ... at least until about four years ago.

Silly Adam.

It has meant, for my entire existence, that the voters have clearly articulated their approval of a policy by electing a person with a solid majority.

There is no way you don't know this.

I wasn't the one arguing that Obama's mandate is cancelled out by a generalized House mandate. I was responding to that argument.

No, you were arguing that more overall Democrat votes for reps showed there wasn't a Republican congressional mandate.

But what there IS, under your own definition, is a separate mandate for each Republican to do what they do, and there are more of THOSE than there are for Democrats. Thus, the larger "popular vote," if it happened, doesn't mean anything. Only the individual election tallies do.

As I said, the whining about "gerrymandering" when it comes to that Republican majority is pretty much exactly the same as whining about the Electoral College.

As for my personal position, this was an election without a mandate. Status quo.

Zyphlin · Nov 8, 2012

head of joaquin said:
He won by a landslide.

There is not a single, solitary rational way one can argue that Obama's win was a "landslide" unless one basically redefines the term landslide to mean "any win that doesn't look like 2000".

He won less than a 2/3rds of the states, 2/3rds of the electoral votes, and less than a 5% margin in the popular vote. That's actually worse than what he did in 2008.....and is not even COMPARABLE to, lets take 1964 where LBJ won over 88% of the states, 90% of the electoral, and won by over a 22% popular vote margin.

We're supposed to consider 2012 a landslide? LBJ 35% more electoral bodies won, 28% more electoral votes, and won by a 20% more of a margin than Obama...but somehow we're supposed to act like those two are similar?

Or is somehow "landslide" the new "win"....what does that make the old landslide? "Super Duper ELECTORAL DESTRUCTION"? I mean seriously....this is ridiculous.

Zyphlin · Nov 8, 2012

Kandahar said:
It shouldn't be hard to design something fairly nonpartisan (i.e. where the House popular vote approximately mirrors the number of seats each party gets):

- Districts should be contiguous and as square-shaped as possible.
- No consideration should be given for the demographic composition of the area, nor for the residences of specific people.
- A computer draws up 9 different maps. Each party gets to eliminate the 4 that they dislike the most. Whatever is left is the new district map.

Love the idea. Sadly, neither party would actually go for it because ultimately they both want to keep that power to steer things their way for a long portion of time when given the opportunity.

Harshaw · Nov 8, 2012

TheNextEra said:
It's like talking in circles with you. The president and vice president are on the ballot, you vote for them. Your vote doesn't get the president/vice president elected though.

Your vote is not going TO the President. Your vote is going to a slate of electors. THEIR votes go TO the President.

You mark a name on a ballot. This doesn't mean that your vote is going to that person. That's not the way it works. Even you say so when you say your vote doesn't elect the President.

AdamT · Nov 8, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Which, since AMERICA elects Presidents based on Electoral Votes, not popular vote, would be a situation where America voted for a Republican President.

Similarly, since AMERICA elects the house control and members through individual districts, not through total popular vote, we have a situation where America voted for a Republican House.

But nice attempts to rewrite reality into something it's not. Just because the Liberal Brietbart tells you that its "not true" doesn't actually mean their opinion is factual.

Did you see me claiming that these Republican legislators shouldn't take office? No, because that's not what I'm saying. The point is to guage to what extent, if any, President Obama has a mandate to move his agenda. Some have claimed that he has NO mandate because the Repubicans won the House vote. I'm simply saying that that is not as meaningful as it might be, seeing as how, for only the second time since WWII, the House minority received more votes than the House majority.

AdamT · Nov 8, 2012

Harshaw said:
What a stupid thing to say. A raw number like that is meaningless when you're talking about a margin of victory.

What a stupid comment to make and then leave out the margin of victory. The margin of victory in the popular vote was almost exactly the same as it was in 2004 ... when Bush and the Republicans declared that they had a mandate. Obama's electoral college win was significantly bigger than Bush's, edging him by almost 50 EVs.

(Nice fail at flowery language, as "whence" means "from where.")

Nice googling, but the useage was correct. :lamo

Silly Adam.

It has meant, for my entire existence, that the voters have clearly articulated their approval of a policy by electing a person with a solid majority.

Perhaps that is how you've incorrectly understood it, but that is not what it means. A mandate is something that the winner of an election always has to move elements of his agenda on which he campaigned. That is distinguished from things that were NOT promised in the campaign. The winner can't claim that he has a mandate to push NEW agenda items because the people had no knowledge of them when they cast their ballots. That's what mandate means in this context. And, as now, there is the separate question of how STRONG the mandate is, which is a function of the size of the victory and the centrality of the issue to the candidate's campaign.

No, you were arguing that more overall Democrat votes for reps showed there wasn't a Republican congressional mandate.

No, I wasn't. Stop with your annoying habit of telling other people what they are arguing. You don't even know what a mandate is, for ****s sake, and you apparently don't even know that people vote for the president. You really have no business telling anyone anything.

But what there IS, under your own definition, is a separate mandate for each Republican to do what they do, and there are more of THOSE than there are for Democrats. Thus, the larger "popular vote," if it happened, doesn't mean anything. Only the individual election tallies do.

Yes, I agree that each winner has his or her own mandate which has to be considered against the backdrop of the overall campaign.

As I said, the whining about "gerrymandering" when it comes to that Republican majority is pretty much exactly the same as whining about the Electoral College.

As for my personal position, this was an election without a mandate. Status quo.[/QUOTE]

Wiggen · Nov 8, 2012

clownboy said:
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.

332 electoral votes out of 538 is a landslide.

AdamT · Nov 8, 2012

Wiggen said:
332 electoral votes out of 538 is a landslide.

Sorry, my fellow liberal, but I've got to side with the others on this one. 332 is a solid win, but it's not a landslide. Eight out of the last 11 elections have been decided by 332 or more, so 332 isn't an unusually big win.

Ontologuy · Nov 8, 2012

AdamT said:
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

Quoting a liberal site link is laughably meaningless. :lol:

Sociological phenomena being what they are, most of the Obama constituencies will be bunched up in cities in great majorities.

No matter how you rightly draw the district lines, that can't be escaped, and vast majorities in these Democrat districts is the norm.

Since big cities encompass such a teeny tiny amount of land space compared to small towns and countryside dwellings, and that Congressional Districts can only belong to a single state of the U.S., and that small towns and countryside dwellers were more likely to be Romney constituents ..

.. It stands to reason that it is highly likely that more House Reps will be Republican for these natural reasons.

There is no "sinister gerrymandering" skullduggery afoot here.

This is just a natural phenomenon of the sociological realities coupled with U.S. districting law.

clownboy · Nov 8, 2012

AdamT said:
What a stupid comment to make and then leave out the margin of victory. The margin of victory in the popular vote was almost exactly the same as it was in 2004 ... when Bush and the Republicans declared that they had a mandate. Obama's electoral college win was significantly bigger than Bush's, edging him by almost 50 EVs.

I'm glad you brought that up. And what did you think at the time when they were claiming mandate? That they were full of ****, right? Same thinking applies here.

Amigo · Nov 8, 2012

head of joaquin said:
Obama's policy was and is clear: raise taxes on the rich,

Which wouldn't help the debt go down at all

invest in infrastructure, demilitarize into a prosperous peace economy.

Invest usually means spend more money....more debt! YAY!

He won by a landslide. That's the mandate.

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo You know he only got half the vote, right?

Now Obama needs to bludgeon bash and smash the tea partiers until they submit.

Keep in mind that Bohener (or however his stupid name goes) is no tea partier.

Thrilla · Nov 8, 2012

the Democrats agenda will not be well served by rushing in and screaming " we have a mandate!.. you have to do what we want!"
they'll run face first into the GOP controlled House and be stopped in their tracks.... not to mention filibustered in the Senate

simply put .. blathering about a mandate does not reconcile well with wishes for bipartisan compromise.... in a divided legislature ,you get one or the other, not both.

The Barbarian · Nov 8, 2012

head of joaquin said:
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.

Lots of luck on that .. cause it aint gonna happen ...

The Barbarian · Nov 8, 2012

Thrilla said:
the Democrats agenda will not be well served by rushing in and screaming " we have a mandate!.. you have to do what we want!"
they'll run face first into the GOP controlled House and be stopped in their tracks.... not to mention filibustered in the Senate

simply put .. blathering about a mandate does not reconcile well with wishes for bipartisan compromise.... in a divided legislature ,you get one or the other, not both.

This is a post I can agree with, the first term, that is exactly what this administration said, I was elected to do it my way .. Either get on board or stand out of the way, he found that didn’t work out so well.

This time around I’m hoping he will seek bipartisan support, if he doesn’t … nothing is going to change ..

joko104 · Nov 8, 2012

AdamT said:
Three million isn't exactly a hairs breadth, now is it?

Your messages astonishingly lack integrity. It isn't just that 3 million out of 119 million is a close election, but how you declare that all 3rd party and independent candidates received a total of ZERO votes.

EVERYONE knows that unspoken assertion of yours is just absolutely false.

The media, so far, has REFUSED to publish TOTAL votes casts, to try to make it falsely seem that Obama won a majority of the votes by 3 million. That, of course is a lie.

By vote totals - so far as it isn't over AND Florida NOT yet totalled, 3rd party and independent candidates received 1.43% of the vote. Thus, out of 119 million votes, the "majority" Obama received was approximately 1%. He did not win with 50% of the vote. Obama won with 49% of the vote.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT. Note it over and over. Obama's win was only 49% of total votes cast. He received a PLURALITY, and NOT a MAJORITY.

roflpublican · Nov 8, 2012

joko104 said:
Your messages astonishingly lack integrity. It isn't just that 3 million out of 119 million is a close election, but how you declare that all 3rd party and independent candidates received a total of ZERO votes.

EVERYONE knows that unspoken assertion of yours is just absolutely false.

The media, so far, has REFUSED to publish TOTAL votes casts, to try to make it falsely seem that Obama won a majority of the votes by 3 million. That, of course is a lie.

By vote totals - so far as it isn't over AND Florida NOT yet totalled, 3rd party and independent candidates received 1.43% of the vote. Thus, out of 119 million votes, the "majority" Obama received was approximately 1%. He did not win with 50% of the vote. Obama won with 49% of the vote.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT. Note it over and over. Obama's win was only 49% of total votes cast. He received a PLURALITY, and NOT a MAJORITY.

basically yes^. this is why i'll continue to dispute anyone saying the democrats have a mandate, because the american people very clearly sent a message that that is not true.

AdamT · Nov 8, 2012

clownboy said:
I'm glad you brought that up. And what did you think at the time when they were claiming mandate? That they were full of ****, right? Same thinking applies here.

What I was thinking was that Bush actually had a mandate for his second term when he never really had one before, after losing the popular vote in '00 and having been appointed president by Anthony Kennedy.

AdamT · Nov 8, 2012

joko104 said:
Your messages astonishingly lack integrity. It isn't just that 3 million out of 119 million is a close election, but how you declare that all 3rd party and independent candidates received a total of ZERO votes.

EVERYONE knows that unspoken assertion of yours is just absolutely false.

The media, so far, has REFUSED to publish TOTAL votes casts, to try to make it falsely seem that Obama won a majority of the votes by 3 million. That, of course is a lie.

By vote totals - so far as it isn't over AND Florida NOT yet totalled, 3rd party and independent candidates received 1.43% of the vote. Thus, out of 119 million votes, the "majority" Obama received was approximately 1%. He did not win with 50% of the vote. Obama won with 49% of the vote.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT. Note it over and over. Obama's win was only 49% of total votes cast. He received a PLURALITY, and NOT a MAJORITY.

You are wrong, of course.

OBAMA WON WITH OVER 50% OF THE POPULAR VOTE.

http://www.cbsnews.com/election-results-2012/president.shtml

Zyphlin · Nov 8, 2012

AdamT said:
Did you see me claiming that these Republican legislators shouldn't take office?

Where did I state I saw your claiming that?

I saw you claiming that it's not true that America voted in a Republican majority in the house.

That's abjectly false.

You could state "A majority of americans didn't vote for Republican congressman". That'd at least be accurate. But "America' did absolutely vote in a republican majority in the house. That's fact, despite your statement of it not being truth.

The point is to guage to what extent, if any, President Obama has a mandate to move his agenda. Some have claimed that he has NO mandate because the Repubicans won the House vote.

Whose claimed he doesn't have a mandate singularly based on Republicans winning the house. Also, where have people said "The house VOTE" and not "Winning the House"?

No, I don't believe Obama has a "mandate". He won less than 2/3rds of the electoral votes, barely over half of the total electoral bodies, and overcame his opponent in the popular vote margin by less than 3%. At the same time, Republicans were voted back into control of the house AND turnout actually decreased for him compared to his first election.

Obama has the standard political capital that comes with winning the Presidency. Essentially, he has the majority of America's support in terms of his agenda and is able to leverage that. However, because of the nature of said win and said majority, that leverage is no where near what I'd call a "mandate".

TurtleDude · Nov 8, 2012

head of joaquin said:
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 landslide-geez is there no end to the silliness and lies in your posts?

MarineTpartier · Nov 8, 2012

head of joaquin said:
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.

And you wonder why we fight tooth and nail against people like you. Because this attitude emanates from people like you all the time. Raise taxes on the rich? You do realize the"tax the rich" plan proposed by Pres Obama doesn't even pay for one day of operation of our gov't right? Invest in infrastructure? Pres Obama had a chance to do that with the stimulus. Instead he tried the death by a thousand daggers approach. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry lobbyist group got their little piece of the pie. What do we have on the other end? Not much. I would love to see this Pres Obama you speak of that is going to demilitarize too. I'd like to meet him and let him know that he's on the right path with that strategy. Where is he?

TurtleDude · Nov 8, 2012

MarineTpartier said:
And you wonder why we fight tooth and nail against people like you. Because this attitude emanates from people like you all the time. Raise taxes on the rich? You do realize the"tax the rich" plan proposed by Pres Obama doesn't even pay for one day of operation of our gov't right? Invest in infrastructure? Pres Obama had a chance to do that with the stimulus. Instead he tried the death by a thousand daggers approach. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry lobbyist group got their little piece of the pie. What do we have on the other end? Not much. I would love to see this Pres Obama you speak of that is going to demilitarize too. I'd like to meet him and let him know that he's on the right path with that strategy. Where is he?

that pretty much sums up reality nicely.

LowDown · Nov 8, 2012

Wiggen said:
And if my aunt had a penis and testicles, she'd be my uncle.

I thought she did, but prefers to be known as an "Aunt".

Well, that's what I heard.

LowDown · Nov 8, 2012

AdamT said:
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

Pretty soon you'll be finding out what Obama's "mandate" is worth. Which is exactly squat.

Higgins86 · Nov 8, 2012

Bobcat said:
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.

so its not the GOP's fault that 3-4 million possible voters didnt vote for them? If anyone has to live by their decisions its the GOP!

No, it was NOT a mixed message

More options

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

Zyphlin

Zyphlin

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot

AdamT

AdamT

Wiggen

AdamT

Ontologuy

clownboy

Amigo

Thrilla

The Barbarian

The Barbarian

joko104

roflpublican

AdamT

AdamT

Zyphlin

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

LowDown

Curmudgeon

LowDown

Curmudgeon

Higgins86