WSJ - "Democrats Shouldn't Overinterpret a (2008) Victory Mandate" - Applies to Scott Brown?

[TomCADem]

Republicans have been doing a week long mandate based on argument that the Massachusett's election is a rejection of liberal policies, and a victory and mandate for conservative policies. However, just a year ago, Republicans were out in force arguing that the 2008 election was not a rejection of conservative policies, nor a mandate for liberal ones.

Democrats Shouldn't Overinterpret a Victory Mandate
NOVEMBER 1, 2008

There is a very challenging question facing America that few pundits and politicians have discussed as we approach an election that could produce a landslide of potentially historic proportions.

How will a renewed and increased Democratic majority judge the results of the election? What implications will they draw from these results?

Stated simply, if the Democrats conclude that they have a mandate to implement their agenda without real consultation with the Republicans, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island suggested in an interview with the New York Times last weekend, the country will be headed for trouble.

Real trouble.

This election is not a mandate for Democratic policies. Rather, it is a wholesale rejection of the policies of George W. Bush, Republicans, and to a lesser extent, John McCain. But it is not, as poll after poll has shown, an embrace of the Democratic Congress, which has approval ratings that are actually lower than that of the president.

The American people are actually seeking a middle route: consensus, conciliation and a results-oriented approach to governance. We need consensus on how to best stimulate our economy, and how to get a deficit that is approaching $1 trillion under control. We have tough choices to make involving entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

Yet, Republicans are now hailing the Scott Brown victory as some mandate and rejection of liberalism when they argued that the 2008 election did not constitute a similar mandate in support of liberal policies.

[bridgit]

1. Yes, more so than Brown and his peanut gallery can imagine

[TomCADem]

4. HuffPo - "Steele: Election Results Show 'Transcendent' GOP"

I guess Republicans are in full hypocrisy mode claiming a mandate notwithstanding their claims that the 2008 election was not a mandate. Are elections mandates or not? If the 2008 election was not a mandate for liberal policies, then the 2009 and 2010 election are not mandates for conservative policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04/steele-election-results-s_n_345069.html

WASHINGTON — An ebullient Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele asserted Wednesday that GOP victories in governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia demonstrate "a transcendent party" on the move again. The White House said the elections were not a repudiation of President Barack Obama.

"We're not crowing, we're just smiling," Steele said in a nationally broadcast interview. "I think it's a bellwether for the party ... You look at where we were nine months ago."

Steele said he believes Chris Christie's victory in New Jersey and Robert McDonnell's win in Virginia show that the GOP has "really found its voice again" after sustaining damaging losses last year.

[ananda]

2. Obama and many Dems didn't interpret the mandate correctly at all..

.. probably on purpose, being as how kowtowing to
corporate interests is so personally lucrative
while being so disastrous for 95% of the population.

[TomCADem]

3. U.S. News - "Barack Obama's Victory Was Not a Mandate for Liberalism" - More Right Wing Hypocrisy!

Once again, where are the corporate media opinions cautioning Republicans about not over reaching following Scott Brown's victory?

Barack Obama's Victory Was Not a Mandate for Liberalism

So how should Democrats interpret last night's victories? Not as the broad mandate for liberalism that many of them would hope it to be.

Chiefly, Barack Obama ran most effectively as a moderate Republican. While he had plenty of big-money, liberal proposals (such as expanding healthcare), the candidate downplayed them after a few forays showed push-back. Instead, Obama gained traction by consistently emphasizing tax and spending cuts. There was a good deal of class warfare in there too, but the theme that most endured was cuts for 95 percent of taxpayers, not increases for the other 5 percent.

Given that voters overwhelmingly indicated the economy was their top issue, Republicans should take heart that Obama's mandate is what should be GOP turf. Where Republicans lost was on the trust factor: Independents drifted to Obama, and conservatives lost faith. Too many Republicans have talked about "the good folks back home" and lower spending, but the headlines show institutionalized corruption and ridiculous bridges to nowhere.

If independents voted for Obama because of tax cuts and balanced budgets, that means they remain essentially center-right. The GOP should spend the next four years shoring up its base. This means repudiating the Bush version of conservatism, characterized by astronomical spending, narrowly defined tax cuts, and a patronizing belief that all will be forgiven with a few sops thrown to the religious right.