Does it matter if we win by 1 point or by 15 points....?

[kentuck]

...so long as we win? For too long, the Democrats have settled for the safe candidate, in my opinion. In the process, we have ended up with nothing. By "we", I mean "we, the people".

What is wrong with expecting the government, to whom we pay humongous amounts of taxes to provide for the military and the welfare of the wealthy, to finally do something for its people? Is it too much to expect a government to help take car of its sick? Is it too much to expect this government to help with college education? Is it too much to expect every American to be covered by universal healthcare?

Why not have a President that wants to finally kick ass and take names, rather than groveling to the special interests? The last President we had that actually thought the government should help its people was LBJ. It is unfortunate that the Vietnam War destroyed his legacy.

Instead, we play it safe. We talk "bi-partisanship" and working together and compromise. We all know that the only time Republicans "compromise" is when it is in their favor. I'm sick of that type of Democratic politics. I don't have any desire to win by 1 point. I want a frigging landslide. I want to bury these sorry greedy bastards under the landslide so deeply that it will take them 40 years to crawl out.

[Drum]

1. Witness the Senate.

A barely-a-majority status quo hasn't done much for Democrats since the '06 election. :shrug:

So yes, I do agree with your OP. :patriot:

[Sadie5]

2. Good thinking Kentuck

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[frazzled]

3. Take names? Who is your candidate, anyway. The Stasi?

Yes it matters whether we win by 1 point or 15 points. It's called a mandate.

We've lived for the past 7 years with a president with no mandate, with a divided congress with no mandate.

The extra 14 percent means the difference between either gridlock and top-down executive thuggery ... or the will of the people. I think it's time for the people to have a say, and the only way that can be accomplished is with a big majority.

Thank you for listening.

[regnaD kciN]

4. So, are you saying Bush had no mandate...?

Funny -- he seems to have done a whole lot with it. A lot more than Democrats managed after the Clinton "landslides" (by comparison).

If there's one thing we've learned over the past seven years, it's that "mandates" (in the sense of a large winning margin) don't count for anything. What counts is having a firm grip on both houses of Congress, so that your President can propose whatever they want, and be assured of a rubber-stamp on Capitol Hill. If you've got that, it doesn't matter if you won by one vote or twenty million. If you don't, the largest winning percentage in history isn't going to do anything for you.

[frazzled]

5. No he didn't: he shoved it down our throats

Through intimidating his own party when they were in power, and using obstructionism and vetoes since the Democrats came to (barely) power. The rest he's done through signing statements, secret actions, recess appointments, etc. Is this what we want?

Personally, I wouldn't want another president who uses power like this: even a Democratic one.