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.
It isn't a mandate because the majority of people are not behind it. Many of them were lazy or dissafected voters. But, if enough is done by the government to anger them they may become non-lazy and non-dissafected voters (which is basically what happened this go around with the R's) - that is the traditional danger of pushing party politics to far to either side, especially when you won on delegates and not the popular vote.
Basically, if you push to far to either size you energize the opposition's base and placate your own.
This time they managed to squeak by on narrow margins in some key demographic areas despite having less votes overall. How much of a vote deficit can they actually overcome remains to be seen, but the race was a lot closer than the red/blue map would indicate at a glance. It would not have taken very much at all to tip the scales in the other direction, and if they **** off enough people that is what will (and historically has) happen.
I don't have too much of a dog in the hunt since I voted for the guy whose primary platform was "We want to leave you alone". But if things continue to go the way they are I would consider voting blue in the mid terms just to attempt to bring some power checks back into the balance. I am probably not the only one.
No mandate? Tell that to the Republican president, house, and Senate and majority of governorships and state legislatures
No mandate? Tell that to the Republican president, house, and Senate and majority of governorships and state legislatures
A mandate has nothing to do with the parties in power it has to do with the will of the people. You can have full government power in all 3 branches won on narrow margins and still not have a mandate. Which is what we currently have.
Do they currently have the POWER to collectively do whatever they want? Yes.
Do they currently have the approval of the populace to WIELD that power however they want? We shall see.
A mandate has nothing to do with the parties in power it has to do with the will of the people. You can have full government power in all 3 branches won on narrow margins and still not have a mandate. Which is what we currently have.
Do they currently have the POWER to collectively do whatever they want? Yes.
Do they currently have the approval of the populace to WIELD that power however they want? We shall see.
Which is exactly how we got to this point. When one party's mandate was based upon an unpopular war and punishing the Republicans and then the antiwar majority forced things through without one vote from the minority party that were unrelated to pulling out of Iraq. Thus the backlash, counter revolution if you like.
Which is exactly how we got to this point. When one party's mandate was based upon an unpopular war and punishing the Republicans and then the antiwar majority forced things through without one vote from the minority party that were unrelated to pulling out of Iraq. Thus the backlash, counter revolution if you like.
Well yea, that is what I already said. Please note that most of what I have said so far has been couched in ways that apply to both parties.
It is just that, now that the shoe is on the other foot, they seem to think that the same social forces will not apply anymore. Shortsighted repetition of the opponents mistakes. "Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it" and whatnot.
A mandate has nothing to do with the parties in power it has to do with the will of the people. You can have full government power in all 3 branches won on narrow margins and still not have a mandate. Which is what we currently have.
Do they currently have the POWER to collectively do whatever they want? Yes.
Do they currently have the approval of the populace to WIELD that power however they want? We shall see.
Yes.
No proof everyone wants Hillary's policies despite Trump winning
No proof everyone wants Hillary's policies despite Trump winning
Hillary won't be Trump's next opponent. If you stay stuck in the past you will be truly screwed if the Democrats put up someone that is actually charismatic or competent that they don't have 20+ years of opresearch on hand for.
And I say this as a person who did not want Hillary's policies either. I just haven't drunk enough of the kool-aide to think that Trump's policies are any better. They were both woefully flawed candidates, the worst I have seen in my lifetime. Two candidates each pandering to the lowest common denominator of their respective sides.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 03-03-2017 at 10:33 AM..
That Republicans "won the battle but lost the war"
That Democrats are favored in the future
True or false?
Mostly false.
Trump was the equivalent of Hail Mary touchdown pass the Republican's didn't throw. Republicans won, but don't know it yet. And they are putting in every effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Clinton Democrat party is done. They fail to see that Trump has more in common with Democrats policy-wise than any other Republican, sans maybe Kasich. There is a great opportunity to pass substantial non-ideological legislation, but the Democrats are determined to snatch total annihilation from the jaws of defeat.
I think RINO Republicans and corporate Democrats are on their way out. The divide is now between populism and elitism.
Amen to that.
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.