Last Night's Mandate

[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?

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

I don't think so. Give it a few weeks for the final tallies to come in, but I'd expect she won the popular vote based on Republicans in Red states that didn't like Trump. Take a look at Texas and Utah for example. Trump won those states, but not by the margins the GOP won them in the past. That's why Nate Silver's model, just to name one, always had a pretty high chance of an Electoral College/popular vote split that would favor Trump.

 

[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".

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?

You forget Reid's use of obscure Senate Rules to get his way, he set the precedent and the Left is going to rue the day he did it. (If McConnell does his job that is)

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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.

I expect in 3-6 months someone is really going to dig into what happened in a lot of the States where the Voting Rights Act had its power stripped away. What they find should be fascinating. There were a lot of stories on election day about long long polling place lines. You can really disenfranchise folks by simply not providing enough polling places.

One of the advantages of being white middle class is that my longest wait time to vote was 20 minutes. That's across all of the various places I've lived. But last night you had lines out the doors all over the place. That simply shouldn't be happening.

 

[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?

You forget Reid's use of obscure Senate Rules to get his way, he set the precedent and the Left is going to rue the day he did it. (If McConnell does his job that is)

I think you underestimate the strategies of your own side in your rush to point fingers. This current vacancy is unprecedented.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

That, and the fact that she never once in this entire campaign gave anyone a single reason to vote for her. Every single one of her campaign ads was collage of Trump clips. In all her bitching about Trump promising to kill the puppies, never once did Clinton think to say "Vote for me and I'll save the puppies."

She very successfully convinced many people not to vote for Trump. But they never became convinced to vote for her, so all the people she reached stayed home yesterday.

 

[Grizz]

As far as the ACA it is an unmitigated disaster and MUST be replaced, Trump has talked of HSA's...that won't solve the problem and make no mistake the problem needs to be solved. What is the solution?
In the short term it would be a Medicare type plan (in my opinion).

 

[WelfareQueen]

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.

There was no mandate.

When one party now control all three branches of Government......yeah...that's a mandate.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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?

You forget Reid's use of obscure Senate Rules to get his way, he set the precedent and the Left is going to rue the day he did it. (If McConnell does his job that is)

Yes. Reid and Pelosi are going to regret a lot of the things pulled in the 2006-2010 period. I'm pretty sure the nuclear option on Supreme Court Justices will be used if it even looks like the next nominee will be philibustered.

And a lot of the Obama legacy is a signature away from being wiped out thanks to the use of Executive action. There's a cost to acting through methods like this. I did vote Hillary, but I'll admit, elections have consequences.

 

[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".

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?

You forget Reid's use of obscure Senate Rules to get his way, he set the precedent and the Left is going to rue the day he did it. (If McConnell does his job that is)

I think you underestimate the strategies of your own side in your rush to point fingers. This current vacancy is unprecedented.

I pay attention to what's happening at all times politically. I know you don't like it, but given what was/is at stake with this Vacancy it was warranted.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

There was no mandate.

When one party now control all three branches of Government......yeah...that's a mandate.

You liberal thugs are all the same. You think that politicians playing political games gives you a mandate. You don't give a shit about the will of the people. It doesn't even factor in to you. In your twisted mind government is so supreme all that matters is that politicians who have the power use their power to keep it. Because that's perfectly moral in your feeble mind.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

As far as the ACA it is an unmitigated disaster and MUST be replaced, Trump has talked of HSA's...that won't solve the problem and make no mistake the problem needs to be solved. What is the solution?
In the short term it would be a Medicare type plan (in my opinion).

I'd agree. HSA's are kind of a joke. They get completely wiped out at the first major illness. I've been offered HSA options and I always turn them down along with Flexible spending plans. Flexible spending is even more of a joke.

And yeah, Obamacare is a mess. The Democrats passed the law they could catering to a bunch of special interests so they could say they passed something. Once the gridlock hit, there was no way to fix it once it needed fixing. It'll be repealed, but short of putting all of the uninsured on Medicare or Medicaid, I have no idea what the replacement plan is. And if the GOP completely repeal Obamacare and folks lose their insurance thanks to the Pre-Existing clause there will be hell to pay.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

I don't think so. Give it a few weeks for the final tallies to come in, but I'd expect she won the popular vote based on Republicans in Red states that didn't like Trump. Take a look at Texas and Utah for example. Trump won those states, but not by the margins the GOP won them in the past. That's why Nate Silver's model, just to name one, always had a pretty high chance of an Electoral College/popular vote split that would favor Trump.

that may be right....

Texas was a squeaker alright....it used to be solidly in the red but over the past few years the Dems have been making inroads and that was with the support of the Hispanics...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As far as the ACA it is an unmitigated disaster and MUST be replaced, Trump has talked of HSA's...that won't solve the problem and make no mistake the problem needs to be solved. What is the solution?
In the short term it would be a Medicare type plan (in my opinion).

I'd agree. HSA's are kind of a joke. They get completely wiped out at the first major illness. I've been offered HSA options and I always turn them down along with Flexible spending plans. Flexible spending is even more of a joke.

And yeah, Obamacare is a mess. The Democrats passed the law they could catering to a bunch of special interests so they could say they passed something. Once the gridlock hit, there was no way to fix it once it needed fixing. It'll be repealed, but short of putting all of the uninsured on Medicare or Medicaid, I have no idea what the replacement plan is. And if the GOP completely repeal Obamacare and folks lose their insurance thanks to the Pre-Existing clause there will be hell to pay.

HSAs get wiped out with a major illness if one is not carrying major medical insurance for those 'major' problems....

 

[Grizz]

As far as the ACA it is an unmitigated disaster and MUST be replaced, Trump has talked of HSA's...that won't solve the problem and make no mistake the problem needs to be solved. What is the solution?
In the short term it would be a Medicare type plan (in my opinion).

I'd agree. HSA's are kind of a joke. They get completely wiped out at the first major illness. I've been offered HSA options and I always turn them down along with Flexible spending plans. Flexible spending is even more of a joke.

And yeah, Obamacare is a mess. The Democrats passed the law they could catering to a bunch of special interests so they could say they passed something. Once the gridlock hit, there was no way to fix it once it needed fixing. It'll be repealed, but short of putting all of the uninsured on Medicare or Medicaid, I have no idea what the replacement plan is. And if the GOP completely repeal Obamacare and folks lose their insurance thanks to the Pre-Existing clause there will be hell to pay.

HSAs get wiped out with a major illness if one is not carrying major medical insurance for those 'major' problems....

With all due respect you cannot OPEN an HSA account without showing that you have a qualified plan in place first.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

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....

I don't think so. Give it a few weeks for the final tallies to come in, but I'd expect she won the popular vote based on Republicans in Red states that didn't like Trump. Take a look at Texas and Utah for example. Trump won those states, but not by the margins the GOP won them in the past. That's why Nate Silver's model, just to name one, always had a pretty high chance of an Electoral College/popular vote split that would favor Trump.

that may be right....

Texas was a squeaker alright....it used to be solidly in the red but over the past few years the Dems have been making inroads and that was with the support of the Hispanics...

Want a peak at the future? I was talking to a coworker today, and based on last night this is what we both had forseen as the future of the USA:

Keep in mind these electoral totals will change. I wouldn't expect to see the Democrats as permanent winners, etc. But I do expect you'll see the US essentially become a three region map in politics, with the Southwest and Northeast as the Democrat's base, with the GOP controlling the large contiguous middle region. You many see Florida start to float towards Blue too.

If that map materializes, and stays stable, I see no way we avoid splitting up as a country. That map up there doesn't represent a country that has an ice cube's chance of staying united. That map is essentially four countries: The Southwest, The Northeast, Utah, and the rest of the nation.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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....

I don't think so. Give it a few weeks for the final tallies to come in, but I'd expect she won the popular vote based on Republicans in Red states that didn't like Trump. Take a look at Texas and Utah for example. Trump won those states, but not by the margins the GOP won them in the past. That's why Nate Silver's model, just to name one, always had a pretty high chance of an Electoral College/popular vote split that would favor Trump.

that may be right....

Texas was a squeaker alright....it used to be solidly in the red but over the past few years the Dems have been making inroads and that was with the support of the Hispanics...

Want a peak at the future? I was talking to a coworker today, and based on last night this is what we both had forseen as the future of the USA:

Keep in mind these electoral totals will change. I wouldn't expect to see the Democrats as permanent winners, etc. But I do expect you'll see the US essentially become a three region map in politics, with the Southwest and Northeast as the Democrat's base, with the GOP controlling the large contiguous middle region. You many see Florida start to float towards Blue too.

If that map materializes, and stays stable, I see no way we avoid splitting up as a country. That map up there doesn't represent a country that has an ice cube's chance of staying united. That map is essentially four countries: The Southwest, The Northeast, Utah, and the rest of the nation.

i sure hope not.....at least last night was a start against that trend...i suspect a whole lot will depend on the shaky economy.....

 

[former republican]

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.

Clinton so far has the majority of the popular vote, even though it's damn close. With that said, there was no mandate. Trump won by default, but I agree that it was time for a change in leadership and the republicans need to work hard to bring unity to the nation. I'm hopeful Trump can do that but I have doubts.