Do Dems Have a Mandate?

[Autonomy]

November 5, 2004: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/11/05/MNGOF9MKHV1.DTL">SF Chronicle

President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence that Americans embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the tax code, curb lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday to work in a bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals."

Bush staked his claim to a broad mandate and announced his top priorities at a post-election news conference, saying his 3.5 million vote victory had won him political capital that he would spend enacting his conservative agenda.

"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."

I recall my reaction to Bush's claim that his narrow victory in 2004 was tantamount to a mandate from the will of the people to continue his policies. Electoral shenanigans in Ohio aside, it seemed to me that the populace was so extremely divided that there was no realistic way he could claim to have a mandate, especially when so many people interviewed said they were voting for what they saw as "the lesser of two evils". My feeling at the time was that Bush was displaying more of his infamous grandiosity, a fatal flaw of hubris for which the gods would exact revenge. It seems I was correct then.

Now, some in the Democratic Party are claiming a mandate from the people. I am wondering, with the electorate still split, can we claim a mandate from the people? This is a distinctly different question from: "Do Dems reach across the aisle in bipartisan statesmanship?" The latter question is in regard to style of governing, which is not the same as whether the people have spoken in anything approaching the unified voice of a mandate.

Or perhaps I misunderstand what a mandate is. It's kind of hard to determine whether there's a mandate in midterm elections, if only because everyone is voting for different people, with local and national issues mixed. My feeling is that we cannot claim a Democratic mandate across the board. Even a repudiation of Bush's policies does not equal a mandate for the Dems. I don't think we should spend political capital (so-called), but rather we should invest it for the long term.

It may come down to an issue-by-issue basis on whether there's a mandate or not. But I think it's more than just semantics. There's a real thing called a mandate... the question is, have the People spoken clearly enough?

[rzemanfl]

1. Looks like people are too divided to do this poll. On edit, when

I posted this the split was 50-50.

[Ninga]

2. Isn't Melman the person with the man date?

[Divine Discontent]

20. where can I get my own ManDate???

where's cboy4 when I need him. :(

[WI_DEM]

3. We have a bigger mandate than Bush got in '00 or '04

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Hell Yes

The election was a landslide! We crushed them across the nation and across all demographics except their fundaloon base.

[Igel]

12. Consider the House.

I didn't think the repubs had a mandate in '00 or '04, with the House split 55% R-45% D. Now it's flipped; I'm not going to decide that the repubs *did* have a mandate just so I can say we have one now. They were wrong then, and their "wrong (R)" is no less or more wrong than a "wrong (D)".

* was mocked for claiming a mandate. Twice. I don't mock, just snark and snipe, but even at the time * was clearly wrong in his claim.

In the Senate, it's the picture's a bit clearer; the dem party won most of the senate seats. But I still don't think it rises to the level of a mandate. If it did, there's the question--given that not all dems ran on the exact same platform--as to what the mandate is. In '92 dems claimed a mandate in what they did; they overreached, and in '94 had their collective ass handed them in a sling. There's a fine line between doing all that's needed and overreaching so as to get kicked out of office. "Mandate" will encourage overreaching.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. **- claimed that his 51% vote was a Man Date.

That was bullshit. The repugnants clearly held the house by a large majority, and have done so since they took over that chamber in 94. They used the House as their power center and base of operations, controlling the legislative process, etc. and did so in a totally partisan manner. While we should not be as vile as they were, we certainly should feel free to pursue our agenda (if only we could decide what that is) and not be too concerned about letting them have much of a say in the process.

[Igel]

19. And * was a fool in making the claim.

The repubs in Congress were little better. We mocked them; we claimed, on principle, they were fools and idiots, that a scant victory (if it was that) was no mandate, and the bare control they had over both houses of Congress wasn't indicative of universal support. We were right. They should have been mocked.

I don't want to deserve to be mocked by following their splendid example and repeating their mistakes.

[Mass]

5. No, our leaders already told us they did not have a mandate.

[Autonomy]

6. I think it depends

on who you're listening to. And whether you believe they believe it.

[Zynx]

7. History tells us there is rarely such a thing.

Parties often push too hard after a big win and voters quickly tell them that they didn't want that. We should be careful. It was not a revolution, but rather a vote of disgust for how out of touch Congress had gotten. That is evidenced by the defeat of six Senate incumbents and many House incumbents. There is strong support for reforms in healthcare and government ethics, but we need to exercise caution. Americans reject change if it comes on too fast.

[Greyhound]

8. Mandate: a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given...

by the electorate to its representative(s)"

The inescapable conclusion is yes.

[Igel]

13. Yes, but the expression in politics usually entails

"a command to act in such a way that there's sufficient moral authority compelling other political actors to acquiesce."

Mass. voters gave their reps a mandate to do a certain thing in Congress. Voters in Texas also gave their reps a mandate. Whether we can sum up the entire electorate and claim that they gave their reps overall a mandate, such that * should acquiesce to it and SCOTUS not take issue with the legislation Congress passes ... that's a different question.

A question that can't simply be answered by a decontextualized dictionary definition.

[OneBlueSky]

9. what the Dems have is an opportunity . . .

the people are saying "Okay, the Repugs fucked it up . . . now show us what YOU can do!" . . .

and we best produce if we want to maintain that majority we just won . . .

[Demeter]

10. And We Have Only 24 Months To Prove Worthy of Said Mandate

so get cracking! And we will have to keep up the grassroots pressure.

[Pragmatic Pilgrim]

11. Scary! Are we really swaggering toward defeat??

It's wishful thinking to consider our victory--which came largely thanks to Red State Dems who bear more resemblance to McCain than to Pelosi--to be a "mandate" for Liberal policies. The voters appear to feel that the Ship of State had been listing too far Right, and they want it upright again...not wrenching suddenly to the Left.

To arrogantly ignore their wishes will be to snatch Defeat from the jaws of Victory. I, for one, will work lke hell to avoid being plunged into yet another couple decades of irrelevance in the national dialogue!

[Greyhound]

15. Whic means what? That the nanny state will allow a woman to decide what is best for her and

her family as long as she complies with the required regulatory gymnastics and gets permission from her masters? That you can keep your vote as long as you accept the chip? That you are free to voice your opinion as long as we can ensure no one hears it?

[terryg11]

17. I agree

some of our new democratic senators and reps make me a little nervous if a topic such as abortion made it's way to the floor.

Also, many of those elections we won on Tuesday were verry close. We have to use the new power responsibly and effectively.

[LWolf]

16. A limited mandate.

I think the mandate is to clean up corruption, ensure fair elections, and get us out of Iraq with as much dignity left as possible.

I don't think the mandate goes beyond that. Everything else is still a street fight.

[warrens]

18. Yes, but a limited one

They wanna see action on a set of concerns, from corruption to the war. They don't want to see a constitutional amendment to ban firearms and cigarettes.

[TriMetFan]

21. It doesn't matter that it was a Midterm Election,

the was a Mandate. The people of America spoke with their vote. Americans could have voted for more Independents around The Nation if they had wanted to, but voted for The Democratic Party. Not only did The Democratic Party take both house's, but also more Democratic Governor's were elected too.