Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can someone explain to me the fuss over a "mandate?" (Original Post) WhaTHellsgoingonhere Nov 2012 OP
I know. Why doesn't a womandate get as much attention? nt valerief Nov 2012 #1
kicking for more bad puns WhaTHellsgoingonhere Nov 2012 #2
After Bush* 2 barely "won" in 2004, he declared he had a mandate. s-cubed Nov 2012 #3
But Bush didn't have the political capital gravity Nov 2012 #7
Its an argument over definig the will of the people demhottie Nov 2012 #4
OK, I just thought it was symbolic. Thanks... WhaTHellsgoingonhere Nov 2012 #5
The idea is that if a President has a mandate then opposition to it Motown_Johnny Nov 2012 #6
This helps a lot. Thanks! WhaTHellsgoingonhere Nov 2012 #8

s-cubed

(1,385 posts)
3. After Bush* 2 barely "won" in 2004, he declared he had a mandate.
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:32 PM
Nov 2012

He said he had earned political capital, and he intended to spend it. Prez Obama won by more, both popular vote and EV: he has political capital which the repubs want to deny him. It's yet another case of trying to delegitimize him, and deny him the respect he deserves. We need to push him to claim that mandate and use the capital for progressive goals.

gravity

(4,157 posts)
7. But Bush didn't have the political capital
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:44 PM
Nov 2012

which he quickly found out.

Just because the Republicans claim that Obama doesn't have a mandate doesn't mean it will come true. Obama clearly has the higher ground now and the public knows it.

demhottie

(292 posts)
4. Its an argument over definig the will of the people
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:32 PM
Nov 2012

So the repugs put a lot of effort into promoting the idea that Obama was personally popular but that the American people did not want Obamacare.

Now that we have had a policy specific election, there is clearly a mandate for tax reform that would raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The repugs are trying to create a parallel dialogue about questioning his mandate to begin to find a way of gutting Obamas presidency and continuing to be obstructionist regarding tax refirm.

It is helpful when Biden starts dropping lines about a tax reform mandate because it allows the administration to stake out its position before the repugs try to and put them on the defensive. The WH must emphasize NOW that this election was about POLICY and anyone following a Grover Nordquist pledge has put a questionable privately signed document above the will of the people.

Joe Biden may seem like your crazy uncle but it's brilliant strategy.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
6. The idea is that if a President has a mandate then opposition to it
Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:43 PM
Nov 2012

equates to opposition to the will of the people.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can someone explain to me...