• 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!

Did Obama win a mandate with his reelection as president?

Did Obama win a mandate with his reelection?


  • Total voters
    46
Then amend the Constitution so that there's one vote per square mile. Good luck with that.

Kind of interesting how California is almost entirely red, but liberals say its a blue state. I guess when you win the dependent sardines no one else matters. :D It works, but it's still pathetic.
 
I would not call it a mandate, but a wake up call. The Reps need to wake up and stop the conspiracy of no as well as separate themselves from the idiots on the far right. Thats how I see it. The Congressional approval rating and the demographic victories of the left are a clear signal that the Cons have to come into the 20th century with thier thinking (yes I know what century it is).

The right should learn to understand the new america and world and find ways to adapt thier platforms accordingly.

That republican guy FROM was on Maher last night and said again that the right should stop relying on information from Fox and the shockjocks. They would learn more about the world if they never listened to any news at all.
 
What do you think?
The definition per WIKI: mandate - the power granted by an electorate. He was elected to office. The amount of the margin of the win doesn't matter. So what definition are you using?
 
Last edited:
No more then a president who made a lot of promises and did not keep any of them and still got reelected.
This is a loaded question, loaded with blanks. If the GOPers hadn't so politically childish and ignorant, they would not have obstructed Baroke Oblamer's destructive agenda. The mandate Obamanable got in 2008 would have not been renewed if it had been empowered to reveal what happens when we turn loose a multicultie Greenhead poverty pimp.

Proving that allowing filibusters hurts both sides. Let the majority rule and pay for its own mistakes. Only then can it be replaced by a different, wiser, and more traditional majority.
 
The blue areas are also the most populated, so it's plausible.
I wish someone would show the results of getting rid of Winner Take All and assigning percentages of a state's electoral vote according to the percentages won of the popular vote in that state. So, in 2000, Bush would have gotten 14.5 electoral votes from Florida, Gore 14.4, and Nader .1.
 
Then why did he get re-elected after going to war? A mandate, that's why. :shrug:

after the fact.

I suppose you could call it a retroactive mandate, but his mandate from that reelection wasn't for starting a war was it.
 
Romney actually won many more states but Obama won the big ones with the biggest electoral vote.


You are such a liar Navy.....not only didn't Romney win "Many more states" than Obama.....he didn't even win ANY more states than Obama. Romney won 24.....Obama won 26 + D.C. Why do you always make up "facts" when you are losing the argument?
 
What's worse, he doesnt even have a sense of humor.
You are such a liar Navy.....not only didn't Romney win "Many more states" than Obama.....he didn't even win ANY more states than Obama. Romney won 24.....Obama won 26 + D.C. Why do you always make up "facts" when you are losing the argument?
 
I don't see how anyone can look at the vote tally and consider it a mandate. Obama seems to be treating it that way though which might get him in trouble.

The Republicans in 2004 considered Bush's smaller margin of victory in both the popular and EC a mandate. If Bush had a mandate per the GOP on such reasoning, then Obama MUST have a mandate on the same logic with a bigger margin of victory in both the popular and EC.

You cannot argue that Bush had a mandate with a weaker victory then Obama and argue Obama doesn't have one.
 
Romney won the great majority of Counties across the US.

View attachment 67138137

So you believe that dirt is more important than people?

That empty land counts more than those who make up the country?

That idiotic argument came out in 2000 and 2004. It only makes sense if you believe land and not people should vote.
 
That may be true. But even still, there doesn't look to be enough blue on that map for it to be possible, but I don't know population stats for each county, either, so you may be right.

Coloring the 2012 Electoral Map by County, Population Density, and Partisan Split

Some guy made a county map. The deeper the color, the more the population. Notice many Republican states are very, very pale. And that several areas are deep blue.

Obama won the popular vote simply because more people voted for him. The idiotic land over people argument posts the county results and doesn't address population. Effectively people like Henrin and Mac are arguing that land, not people are what counts. It's stupid. It was stupid in 2000. Stupid in 2004. Stupid in 2008 and it's stupid now.

I don't think anyone that is HONEST, thinks that land matters more in an election then people.
 
the two sides were very clear, with two visions, one side won, while the other side did not.
 
he has a terrible tendency to simply let congress do nothing
A fairly silly complaint. If you hadn't noticed, all hints of action of any sort were tossed out the window right around the 2010 midterms.
 
Coloring the 2012 Electoral Map by County, Population Density, and Partisan Split

Some guy made a county map. The deeper the color, the more the population. Notice many Republican states are very, very pale. And that several areas are deep blue.

Obama won the popular vote simply because more people voted for him. The idiotic land over people argument posts the county results and doesn't address population. Effectively people like Henrin and Mac are arguing that land, not people are what counts. It's stupid. It was stupid in 2000. Stupid in 2004. Stupid in 2008 and it's stupid now.

I don't think anyone that is HONEST, thinks that land matters more in an election then people.

The more I see, the more I'm convinced conservatives could really care less about people. So far from what I've seen, from before the election until now, Republicans have been more concerned with businesses, particularly their "rights" (remember, businesses are people too), and now land. It's hard to think that they are what's best for the country, when they don't have the slightest clue, or the inclination, how to help the people, who are the country. This is a sad state.
 
The more I see, the more I'm convinced conservatives could really care less about people.

I don't know if we should characterize these people as Conservative. But more then a few people here on this forum have made it perfectly clear they have absolutely no problems letting people die in the street if it saves them a few bucks. In fact, several of them advocated for stripping these people of the safety net to prevent their deaths. Heartless to say the least. And quite anti-Reagan as well.

So far from what I've seen, from before the election until now, Republicans have been more concerned with businesses, particularly their "rights" (remember, businesses are people too), and now land.

To a degree yeah. Many are anti-business when the business are those Democrats support. It's more of a reactionary take then anything else.
 
A fairly silly complaint. If you hadn't noticed, all hints of action of any sort were tossed out the window right around the 2010 midterms.

Shocking, do you mean that other elections (and their associated mandates) have consequences too? Perhaps, actually governing does require compromise, unlike campaigning. It will continue to be so if, unlike Clinton, Obama seeks to allow it. Clinton accepted reality, compromised and accomplished quite a bit with an "opposing" party majority in congress.
 
Gridlock is what people through our system voted for, so gridlock is what they should get. No talk of slim margin "mandates" changes that. I love how the media talks out of one side of its mouth about people voting for the status quo while encouraging house republicans to act different out of the other. Too funny.
 
Even if businesses were alloweed to vote, there's a higher concentration of businesses where there's a higher density of people.
 
He was RE-elected. That is a validation of his policies. The majority are in favor.
 
No, he did not get a mandate. He received additional leverage.
 
Yes, he won. Mandate? No.


I think this election with Obama being reelected along with the Republican House just tells me America doesn't know what the heck is going on. How does a congress with a 9% approval rating have an 80%+ reelection rate? It doesn't make any sense.
No schiet.


I guess President Obama has at least as much of a mandate as President G W Bush had in 2004.

Bush received 286 Electoral votes and Kerry 251
Obama recived 332 Electoral votes and Romney 206
Electoral percentages =/= popular opinion percentages.


332/206 is not 51/49.
Way to be purposely obtuse.
 
Does his "lame duck" status lessen any leverage he may have gained?

It would if his party can't roll behind him. Right now, we do have to consider the relative temporary exhaustion on behalf of the GOP as more meaningful.
 
Back
Top Bottom