Last Night's Mandate

[Coyote]

Sorry but there is.

In sense yes, but not what you think. For one - failing to win the popular vote speaks volumes about the strength of his candidacy.

The only "mandate" this election gives is that of a clear warning to the two major parties that the status quo is not acceptable. Trump owes NOTHING to the Republican party and in fact has never consistently held to all the core Republican principles. The party largely did not support him. Both parties are fractured and ineffective at the moment. Am wondering what phoenyx or two or three will arise from these ashes?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Hilcat got the POPULAR VOTE? did she?

It appears so. Funny, unlike 2000, nobody's talking about it. They talk about the election as if Trump won by 5 million votes.

oh-----well-----the system is the system

It's a quaint oddity leftover from long ago, kind of like the tri-corner hat.

And conestoga wagons and light by candles.

 

[Grizz]

Obama was your secret weapon....he was kicked in the teeth....he played the Race Card over and over and over and it failed.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Make no mistake, that's what you saw.
Now it's shit or get off the pot time, we have the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office.
Republican's now need to Govern and get things done period.

Not exactly a mandate, Sparky, when it comes to the actual vote count. Clinton won that.
The electoral college needs to go.

Clinton: 59,578,989
Trump: 59,341,446

Yes. We need to have CA and NY control the whole nation.

Not.

If that's where more people live, then that's because it's a free country and they can do so, and they can vote, too.

 

[SwimExpert]

Erm, Clinton seems to have the popular vote. So I'm exactly sure what mandate you're referring to, but this is a forum about US politics.

Control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House isn't enough of a mandate for you.....?

No. Because that is all politics. I believe that mandates come from the people, upon their overwhelming support. A President cannot hold a mandate without support of the popular vote, or even with a modest edge in the popular vote. But I understand how you feel. You're so blinded with partisan hysteria you can't think straight with all that semen you've shot inside your own ears.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Obama was your secret weapon....he was kicked in the teeth....he played the Race Card over and over and over and it failed.

Huh? He wasn't running for POTUS, honey. No wonder your other posts don't make a bit of ******* sense.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Hilcat got the POPULAR VOTE? did she?

It appears so. Funny, unlike 2000, nobody's talking about it. They talk about the election as if Trump won by 5 million votes.

oh-----well-----the system is the system

It's a quaint oddity leftover from long ago, kind of like the tri-corner hat.

A lot of uninformed people think that way. Do your self a favor and read why we have it and how it best represents all states and voters, or just skip along the ignorant path you are on.

Arguments in favor of the Electoral College | Science Buzz

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Erm, Clinton seems to have the popular vote. So I'm exactly sure what mandate you're referring to, but this is a forum about US politics.

Control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House isn't enough of a mandate for you.....?

Did Obama have a Mandate in 2008? He won the Presidency, the House, and a philibuster proof senate.

Mandate is a pretty stupid word all told. But I would definitely question the word Mandate here. It's looking like Trump lost the popular vote. So he has control. The GOP has control. But I'd be careful about tossing around the word Mandate. Winning through the Electoral college isn't a mandate. Winning gerrymandered House Seats isn't much of a mandate either. And the GOP didn't get a supermajority in the Senate. They'll maybe finish at 53 total Senators. So it's not philibuster proof.

Again, I don't see a lot of folks that would claim now Obama had a mandate in 2008, and his win was arguably larger.

But I will concede this: Trump has a responsibility to his voters. Obama did a lot with executive orders after Congress became deadlocked. He can undo some of the most unpopular parts of Obama's legacy on day one if he so chooses. And if he doesn't, his voters should hold him accountable.

 

[Grizz]

Sorry but there is.

In sense yes, but not what you think. For one - failing to win the popular vote speaks volumes about the strength of his candidacy.

The only "mandate" this election gives is that of a clear warning to the two major parties that the status quo is not acceptable. Trump owes NOTHING to the Republican party and in fact has never consistently held to all the core Republican principles. The party largely did not support him. Both parties are fractured and ineffective at the moment. Am wondering what phoenyx or two or three will arise from these ashes?

Sorry, but you don't what I "think".....you could but you don't want to.

"The only "mandate" this election gives is that of a clear warning to the two major parties that the status quo is not acceptable"

That' exactly my point, further we control the entire Government and that in and of itself is a mandate to get things done...and that does not mean more of the same. It means that we get to work undoing his agenda.
The ACA.
The Iranian "non-deal".

Your side knew that the SC was the real prize here and now that is out of reach for you, you came within inches of being able to irrevocably, fundamentally change this Nation and you were told "no".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Erm, Clinton seems to have the popular vote. So I'm exactly sure what mandate you're referring to, but this is a forum about US politics.

Control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House isn't enough of a mandate for you.....?

Did Obama have a Mandate in 2008? He won the Presidency, the House, and a philibuster proof senate.

Mandate is a pretty stupid word all told. But I would definitely question the word Mandate here. It's looking like Trump lost the popular vote. So he has control. The GOP has control. But I'd be careful about tossing around the word Mandate. Winning through the Electoral college isn't a mandate. Winning gerrymandered House Seats isn't much of a mandate either. And the GOP didn't get a supermajority in the Senate. They'll maybe finish at 53 total Senators. So it's not philibuster proof.

Again, I don't see a lot of folks that would claim now Obama had a mandate in 2008, and his win was arguably larger.

But I will concede this: Trump has a responsibility to his voters. Obama did a lot with executive orders after Congress became deadlocked. He can undo some of the most unpopular parts of Obama's legacy on day one if he so chooses. And if he doesn't, his voters should hold him accountable.

i said 'enough of a mandate'......i agree with you that it is a pretty stupid word because what does it really mean exactly....?

let's just say that Trump's win told us the People are sick and tired of Obama and the Marxist cabal in Washington....

 

[Fueri]

well, the pubs have the power, but that's not the equivalent of a mandate, which seems to immediately be what the winning side declares it has, regardless of the margin.

Obama and the dems declared they had it, jammed Obamacare on America, ran roughshod over the millions of people that disagreed with them as much as they were able for 8 years-- and shot themselves right in the ass with both barrels by ignoring the other half of the country, while busily preparing for at least 4 more years of the same jackassery.

The libs have less power right now than at any time I can remember. They are pretty much reduced to filibustering what they can in the Senate, and, IMO, it is a direct result of believing their own bullshit and overplaying their hand as a result.

the pubs can do what they want. they've got the power, and I see the appeal of just waging all out war on the left, but we should learn from the left's demise that there is a very real long term downside to acting as if 50% of the country can just go **** itself....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

well, the pubs have the power, but that's not the equivalent of a mandate, which seems to immediately be what the winning side declares it has, regardless of the margin.

Obama and the dems declared they had it, jammed Obamacare on America, ran roughshod over the millions of people that disagreed with them as much as they were able for 8 years-- and shot themselves right in the ass with both barrels by ignoring the other half of the country, while busily preparing for at least 4 more years of the same jackassery.

The libs have less power right now than at any time I can remember. They are pretty much reduced to filibustering what they can in the Senate, and, IMO, it is a direct result of believing their own bullshit and overplaying their hand as a result.

the pubs can do what they want. they've got the power, and I see the appeal of just waging all out war on the left, but we should learn from the left's demise that there is a very real long term downside to acting as if 50% of the country can just go **** itself....

but that's exactly what the Demonrats did....time to balance the equation....

just wait....the new Dem word will be 'bipartisanship'.....

 

[Grizz]

Obama was your secret weapon....he was kicked in the teeth....he played the Race Card over and over and over and it failed.

Huh? He wasn't running for POTUS, honey. No wonder your other posts don't make a bit of ******* sense.

You aren't real bright are you kid?
He made it about him, the fact that you didn't pay attention to it isn't my problem.
He made it VERY clear that HIS agenda was at stake, Hillary embraced it full on and it was all rejected.
Sorry.

 

[Fueri]

well, the pubs have the power, but that's not the equivalent of a mandate, which seems to immediately be what the winning side declares it has, regardless of the margin.

Obama and the dems declared they had it, jammed Obamacare on America, ran roughshod over the millions of people that disagreed with them as much as they were able for 8 years-- and shot themselves right in the ass with both barrels by ignoring the other half of the country, while busily preparing for at least 4 more years of the same jackassery.

The libs have less power right now than at any time I can remember. They are pretty much reduced to filibustering what they can in the Senate, and, IMO, it is a direct result of believing their own bullshit and overplaying their hand as a result.

the pubs can do what they want. they've got the power, and I see the appeal of just waging all out war on the left, but we should learn from the left's demise that there is a very real long term downside to acting as if 50% of the country can just go **** itself....

but that's exactly what the Demonrats did....

yep, and it bit them right in the ass.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Erm, Clinton seems to have the popular vote. So I'm exactly sure what mandate you're referring to, but this is a forum about US politics.

Control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House isn't enough of a mandate for you.....?

Did Obama have a Mandate in 2008? He won the Presidency, the House, and a philibuster proof senate.

Mandate is a pretty stupid word all told. But I would definitely question the word Mandate here. It's looking like Trump lost the popular vote. So he has control. The GOP has control. But I'd be careful about tossing around the word Mandate. Winning through the Electoral college isn't a mandate. Winning gerrymandered House Seats isn't much of a mandate either. And the GOP didn't get a supermajority in the Senate. They'll maybe finish at 53 total Senators. So it's not philibuster proof.

Again, I don't see a lot of folks that would claim now Obama had a mandate in 2008, and his win was arguably larger.

But I will concede this: Trump has a responsibility to his voters. Obama did a lot with executive orders after Congress became deadlocked. He can undo some of the most unpopular parts of Obama's legacy on day one if he so chooses. And if he doesn't, his voters should hold him accountable.

i said 'enough of a mandate'......i agree with you that it is a pretty stupid word because what does it really mean exactly....?

let's just say that Trump's win told us the People are sick and tired of Obama and the Marxist cabal in Washington....

I've said it elsewhere, but it bears repeating. Obama himself was pretty popular. He was easily elected and easily re-elected. The DNC though is a different story. They've been losing at the state level for a while now. Despite Obama's approval ratings and popularity they lost Congress decisively in 2010, again in 2012 (with Obama on the ticket!), and again in 2014. And in 2016 without Obama at the top of ticket they got absolutely demolished.

I do not know what happens next for the DNC. Yeah, they'll have come out of this winning the popular vote, but so what? If you can't translate that to House seats, Senate seats, Statehouse gains, Governorships, etc, then what good is it?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Erm, Clinton seems to have the popular vote. So I'm exactly sure what mandate you're referring to, but this is a forum about US politics.

Control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House isn't enough of a mandate for you.....?

Did Obama have a Mandate in 2008? He won the Presidency, the House, and a philibuster proof senate.

Mandate is a pretty stupid word all told. But I would definitely question the word Mandate here. It's looking like Trump lost the popular vote. So he has control. The GOP has control. But I'd be careful about tossing around the word Mandate. Winning through the Electoral college isn't a mandate. Winning gerrymandered House Seats isn't much of a mandate either. And the GOP didn't get a supermajority in the Senate. They'll maybe finish at 53 total Senators. So it's not philibuster proof.

Again, I don't see a lot of folks that would claim now Obama had a mandate in 2008, and his win was arguably larger.

But I will concede this: Trump has a responsibility to his voters. Obama did a lot with executive orders after Congress became deadlocked. He can undo some of the most unpopular parts of Obama's legacy on day one if he so chooses. And if he doesn't, his voters should hold him accountable.

i said 'enough of a mandate'......i agree with you that it is a pretty stupid word because what does it really mean exactly....?

let's just say that Trump's win told us the People are sick and tired of Obama and the Marxist cabal in Washington....

I've said it elsewhere, but it bears repeating. Obama himself was pretty popular. He was easily elected and easily re-elected. The DNC though is a different story. They've been losing at the state level for a while now. Despite Obama's approval ratings and popularity they lost Congress decisively in 2010, again in 2012 (with Obama on the ticket!), and again in 2014. And in 2016 without Obama at the top of ticket they got absolutely demolished.

I do not know what happens next for the DNC. Yeah, they'll have come out of this winning the popular vote, but so what? If you can't translate that to House seats, Senate seats, Statehouse gains, Governorships, etc, then what good is it?

if you ask me alot of that 'popular vote' probably came from the 20 or 40 million illegals running around our country....

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Obama was your secret weapon....he was kicked in the teeth....he played the Race Card over and over and over and it failed.

Huh? He wasn't running for POTUS, honey. No wonder your other posts don't make a bit of ******* sense.

You aren't real bright are you kid?
He made it about him, the fact that you didn't pay attention to it isn't my problem.
He made it VERY clear that HIS agenda was at stake, Hillary embraced it full on and it was all rejected.
Sorry.

Something about that doesn't work here though. Obama easily won election and re-election. And his favorabilities and approval ratings were great. The problem is, and was always, Hillary herself. She was absolutely horrible to the Obamas in 2008 and if you were an Obama supporter you likely haven't forgotten that.

I think that if Obama had Biden as the nominee, he could have really helped him win. Or Booker? Someone that you could legitmately say was an Obama supporter and would carry his legacy. But Hillary was absolutely not that person.

 

[Coyote]

Sorry but there is.

In sense yes, but not what you think. For one - failing to win the popular vote speaks volumes about the strength of his candidacy.

The only "mandate" this election gives is that of a clear warning to the two major parties that the status quo is not acceptable. Trump owes NOTHING to the Republican party and in fact has never consistently held to all the core Republican principles. The party largely did not support him. Both parties are fractured and ineffective at the moment. Am wondering what phoenyx or two or three will arise from these ashes?

Sorry, but you don't what I "think".....you could but you don't want to.

"The only "mandate" this election gives is that of a clear warning to the two major parties that the status quo is not acceptable"

That' exactly my point, further we control the entire Government and that in and of itself is a mandate to get things done...and that does not mean more of the same. It means that we get to work undoing his agenda.
The ACA.
The Iranian "non-deal".

Your side knew that the SC was the real prize here and now that is out of reach for you, you came within inches of being able to irrevocably, fundamentally change this Nation and you were told "no".

Your side set a precedent you know - by refusing to allow Obama his right to appoint a justice, when he had over a year left. What's to stop the Dems from a filiabuster?

What do you plan on replacing ACA with?

How do you plan on handling the Iranian nuclear issue if you dismantle the agreement - assuming you can?

 

[SwimExpert]

let's just say that Trump's win told us the People are sick and tired of Obama and the Marxist cabal in Washington....

Except more people voted for Clinton than voted for Trump.....

 

[Coyote]

Erm, Clinton seems to have the popular vote. So I'm exactly sure what mandate you're referring to, but this is a forum about US politics.

Control of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House isn't enough of a mandate for you.....?

Did Obama have a Mandate in 2008? He won the Presidency, the House, and a philibuster proof senate.

Mandate is a pretty stupid word all told. But I would definitely question the word Mandate here. It's looking like Trump lost the popular vote. So he has control. The GOP has control. But I'd be careful about tossing around the word Mandate. Winning through the Electoral college isn't a mandate. Winning gerrymandered House Seats isn't much of a mandate either. And the GOP didn't get a supermajority in the Senate. They'll maybe finish at 53 total Senators. So it's not philibuster proof.

Again, I don't see a lot of folks that would claim now Obama had a mandate in 2008, and his win was arguably larger.

But I will concede this: Trump has a responsibility to his voters. Obama did a lot with executive orders after Congress became deadlocked. He can undo some of the most unpopular parts of Obama's legacy on day one if he so chooses. And if he doesn't, his voters should hold him accountable.

i said 'enough of a mandate'......i agree with you that it is a pretty stupid word because what does it really mean exactly....?

let's just say that Trump's win told us the People are sick and tired of Obama and the Marxist cabal in Washington....

I've said it elsewhere, but it bears repeating. Obama himself was pretty popular. He was easily elected and easily re-elected. The DNC though is a different story. They've been losing at the state level for a while now. Despite Obama's approval ratings and popularity they lost Congress decisively in 2010, again in 2012 (with Obama on the ticket!), and again in 2014. And in 2016 without Obama at the top of ticket they got absolutely demolished.

I do not know what happens next for the DNC. Yeah, they'll have come out of this winning the popular vote, but so what? If you can't translate that to House seats, Senate seats, Statehouse gains, Governorships, etc, then what good is it?

if you ask me alot of that 'popular vote' probably came from the 20 or 40 million illegals running around our country....

That's probably matched the 20 or 40 million legitimate voters the Republicans disenfranchised.