Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Usually in elections it is said the a landslide victory is needed to serve as a mandate for huge, sweeping changes in laws and programs. Trump won in the Electoral College with a good margin but most would not call it a landslide. Hillary Clinton is winning the national popular vote by the largest margin in U.S. history:
Clinton lead = 1,158,809 (source: Cook Political Report)
For the most part, Obama chose executive order over legislation. Trump can undo most of Obama's legacy in about 15 minutes. Aside from that, it really doesn't matter whether or not Trump has a mandate... he and the Republican Party have the power. Additionally, Trump knows how to bypass the media and talk directly to the people, giving him greater influence over obstructing Democrats.
Sigh....again and again as mentioned, if an election was based on a popular vote, a different campaign strategy would have been practiced by those running.
It would also change voter turn out especially in uncontested states like California. Everyone knows the Democrat is going to win all the state's electors. It does not matter if the margin is 20% or 50% so a lot of people stay home. If my vote mattered as much someone in Florida or Ohio I would have considered voting for Clinton. Since my vote is worth almost nothing I voted to get the Green Party federal funding.
Why is it that the only places promoting that nonsense are RWNJ websites?
Because LWNJs keep spouting off that the popular vote somehow means anything. Two extreme sides of the political spectrum that are like the crazy drunk on a city street corner screaming crazy things that mean nothing.
"Hillary won the popular vote!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!"
"3 million fake votes!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!"
on both sides, nothing more than that. Everyone needs to shut up about it already, the election is over.
No, it doesn't. But one has to be clear what his mandate it.
The president has executive power to enforce domestic laws and wide-ranging, but not full, powers in foreign policy.
At least as I see it, then, Trump's mandate is to:
1) enforce current immigration laws where his two predecessors were lax;
2) make subtle shifts in foreign alliances and war policy;
3) scuttle or promote any ongoing negotiations for pending trade treaties;
4) make subtle shifts in how certain regulations are enforced.
Territorial integrity and legality.
I am not sure to what extent Constitutionally and legally the executive has the power to unilaterally suspend or alter existing trade and other international treaties. I have heard mention of a clause in NAFTA that could possibly allow suspension or withdrawal, but I am not sure of the details. Also I am not sure to what extent the executive could alter the validity or execution of the nuclear treaty with Iran.
As for any new legislation and spending, the executive still has to deal with Congress, both House and Senate; the latter has the power of filibuster, no small power. Moreover, many representatives and senators ran independently of the presidency this election cycle, as it always should be: they represent people in their districts and the States, respectively, not the entire country, which is a union, with qualifications, of semi-sovereign States.
But as for federal domestic policy, I am not sure how deep a commitment there is to, for example, radically change the tax code or spend massively on infrastructure at current technology. I am not even sure that I want that.
I think there is some mandate to peel back some of the economically deleterious aspects of the so-called Affordable Care Act (which it really isn't), but not some of its most popular aspects, and I think Trump already understands that.
I would like to see regulations and policies that would support dearly needed small business formation and success, which is a realistic prospect.
I would like to see the set up of protected low/medium-tech manufacturing zones in the interior of the country; that's my own idea, I don't think any policymakers have ever talked about that.
I would like to see financial system reform featuring an updated version of Glass-Steagall. I don't demonize the Fed, leave it alone. But some updated version of Glass-Steagall definitely.
I don't think that the new administration has any mandate to roll back the legal rights of same sex couples in civil unions: these legal rights are good fiscal policy and any threat to them would be a totally unnecessary assault on social peace, which we dearly need.
A single-payer health care financing system would also go a long way to promoting dearly needed social peace in our beloved country, but not even the so-called democrats even attempted that, even when they had a supermajority in 2009-2010, giving us a complicated mess instead. Big disappointment, big mistake (among many).
But no matter what happens next, Donald Trump has already achieved his most important mandate: in a single, sustained, economically efficient campaign, trump the establishment party's two dynasty candidates (first Bush, then Clinton) in one fell swoop!
That is a great service to our Constitutional Republic.
Trump flipped 7 states from Blue to Red. It won him the Presidency just like we all said he would.
He ran against the weakest Democratic candidate ever to run. She did worse than; a dope smoking , muslim, chicago hood, community organizer , with no executive experience, born in Kenya, bi-racial black guy, (so I've heard) and still got the popular vote.
The GOP still has to worry about that huge percentage of registered voters who didn't vote Republican. If I were a GOP strategist I would worry if those people are up for grabs to the Democrats. Trump is the odd ball guy who runs onto the field and intercepts the football and runs it into the goal line. Republicans who voted are like the opposing team's fans who are cheering even though they don't get the score.
He ran against the weakest Democratic candidate ever to run. She did worse than; a dope smoking , muslim, chicago hood, community organizer , with no executive experience, born in Kenya, bi-racial black guy, (so I've heard) and still got the popular vote.
The GOP still has to worry about that huge percentage of registered voters who didn't vote Republican. If I were a GOP strategist I would worry if those people are up for grabs to the Democrats. Trump is the odd ball guy who runs onto the field and intercepts the football and runs it into the goal line. Republicans who voted are like the opposing team's fans who are cheering even though they don't get the score.
The GOP now controls the US Senate, US House, the Presidency, the most governorships and the majority of state governments. At the moment they don't seem to be the party with the worries.
Usually in elections it is said the a landslide victory is needed to serve as a mandate for huge, sweeping changes in laws and programs. Trump won in the Electoral College with a good margin but most would not call it a landslide. Hillary Clinton is winning the national popular vote by the largest margin in U.S. history:
Clinton lead = 1,158,809 (source: Cook Political Report)
She didn't win the popular vote, she got 'swamped' unless you believe Soros and his henchmen didn't rig the vote counts, after all, the election is over, so its not likely that anyone is going to question a little election fraud on vote counts due to the fact that it doesn't change the final result, pad a little here and pad a little there, reasonable people don't think that more actual living and eligible people voted for Hillary, you don't think that, right?
The GOP now controls the US Senate, US House, the Presidency, the most governorships and the majority of state governments. At the moment they don't seem to be the party with the worries.
Therein lies the problem, If were a Democratic strategist I would take all the Hillary campaign machinery and retool it for local and state elections. They don't need to win them all, just make them close like what's happening to Darrell Issa. You would see a lot of backing down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
on both sides, nothing more than that. Everyone needs to shut up about it already, the election is over.
