2012 Elections in the USA

[Tiny12]

I never said it was a strong mandate. A mandate is a mandate. 50. 1 % is a mandate. So is 60. And Obama got one.

I said it was not a "strong mandate." You said I was mistaken. As to me making up bull shit, isn't that a little hypocritical? Like you making up bullshit about Toymann?

[Member #2041]

As you would like to re-define the word "strong."

I never said it was a strong mandate. Show me where I said that, rather than you just making up more bullshit. A mandate is a mandate. 50.1 % is a mandate. So is 60%. And Obama got a mandate.

[Tiny12]

you simply would like to re-define the word Mandate. Got it.

No, that's not true. However, apparently you would like to re-define the word "strong."

[Tiny12]

Should be interesting how the administration will be handling CO and WA, as there is a MANDNATE for legal marijuana there, will the Feds under Obama circumvent that and intervene with DEA raids? Plus Obama has smoked it himself. Obama won both of these states too, with MANDATE margins. Hopefully they will do the right thing and respect the will of the people in both states and leave them alone.

It doesn't look good, as the Obama administration has been much more aggressive about shutting down medical marijuana growers and sellers than the Bush administration.

Back in 2008 I saw some possible silver linings to Obama being elected. A slowdown in the war on drugs was one of them. Also not being as anal with illegal immigrants, lower defense spending, a quick end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and better standing in the the Muslim world (where I do some business). None of that happened though.

[Silver Star]

Did you know that the Democrats got more votes for the House than the Republicans did in this election? The only reason the Republicans still held the House (although they lost several seats) is that they very effectively gerrymandered the districts during the period that they controlled the House after the 2000 census and again after the 2010 census.

In any case, from this election, we know the following:

. Dems had a majority of the Popular Vote in total for all House Seats, a big edge for all Senate Seats (they had an advantage here, with twice as many Senate incumbents) , as well as the Presidency.

. Exit polling showed that 60% of voters approved of increasing taxes on those earning over $250K (with only 25% opposing this).

Obama's popular mandate was larger than either of G. W. Bush's elections, and his electoral mandate was FAR larger (by like 20%)

-

Exit polling showed that 60% of voters approved of increasing taxes on those earning over $250K (with only 25% opposing this).

My reaction is.

Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Silver Star]

So you are aware of the facts, but you simply would like to re-define the word Mandate. Got it.

Should be interesting how the administration will be handling CO and WA, as there is a MANDNATE for legal marijuana there, will the Feds under Obama circumvent that and intervene with DEA raids? Plus Obama has smoked it himself. Obama won both of these states too, with MANDATE margins. Hopefully they will do the right thing and respect the will of the people in both states and leave them alone.

[Silver Star]

I'm the one who said it was a "bit clearer" mandate, and I was referring to the electoral vote and not the popular vote. But, if you look at the definition of the word 'mandate,' you will see that degrees of majority are not part of the definition. In fact, dictionary.com gives an example of a mandate versus a clear mandate. So, I am saying it is a clearer mandate. 50.1% is a mandate. Look it up.

Thanks. This is what I came up with (see below). I was thinking mandate meant around 10% margin of victory in popular vote. Electoral vote totals are mostly winner take all, and distort popular vote percentages. I don't see winning by less than 3% as a large margin of victory.

In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative. [1]

The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.

Elections, especially ones with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected government or elected official a mandate to put into effect certain policies. [2] Also, the period during which a government serves between elections is often referred to as a mandate and when the government seeks re-election it is said to be seeking a "new mandate".

[Member #2041]

Yes I knew that. But I still do not believe the margin of victory or votes represents a strong mandate. Democrats have been gerrymandering in California and with time the tables will turn elsewhere. You'll likely get what you want, a country controlled just by your party and the Europeanization of America.

So you are aware of the facts, but you simply would like to re-define the word Mandate. Got it.

[Tiny12]

Did you know that the Democrats got more votes for the House than the Republicans did in this election?

Yes I knew that. But I still do not believe the margin of victory or votes represents a strong mandate. Democrats have been gerrymandering in California and with time the tables will turn elsewhere. You'll likely get what you want, a country controlled just by your party and the Europeanization of America.

[Dickhead]

I don't see how less than a 3% margin of victory and barely over 50% vote total is a mandate. A sliver above majority in popular vote is hardly a mandate.

I'm the one who said it was a "bit clearer" mandate, and I was referring to the electoral vote and not the popular vote. But, if you look at the definition of the word 'mandate,' you will see that degrees of majority are not part of the definition. In fact, dictionary.com gives an example of a mandate versus a clear mandate. So, I am saying it is a clearer mandate. 50.1% is a mandate. Look it up.

[Member #2041]

Not to mention that the other major party won the House of Representatives, so that nothing has really changed since before the election.

You'd best not question in this forum whether there's a strong mandate though. You may be accused like I was of believing in slavery, and thinking you deserve one vote for yourself and an additional 0. 6 votes for each of your slaves.

Did you know that the Democrats got more votes for the House than the Republicans did in this election? The only reason the Republicans still held the House (although they lost several seats) is that they very effectively gerrymandered the districts during the period that they controlled the House after the 2000 census and again after the 2010 census.

In any case, from this election, we know the following:

- Dems had a majority of the Popular Vote in total for all House Seats, a big edge for all Senate Seats (they had an advantage here, with twice as many Senate incumbents), as well as the Presidency.

- Exit polling showed that 60% of voters approved of increasing taxes on those earning over $250K (with only 25% opposing this).

Obama's popular mandate was larger than either of G.W. Bush's elections, and his electoral mandate was FAR larger (by like 20%)

[Tiny12]

I don't see how less than a 3% margin of victory and barely over 50% vote total is a mandate. A sliver above majority in popular vote is hardly a mandate.

Not to mention that the other major party won the House of Representatives, so that nothing has really changed since before the election.

You'd best not question in this forum whether there's a strong mandate though. You may be accused like I was of believing in slavery, and thinking you deserve one vote for yourself and an additional 0.6 votes for each of your slaves. Anyone who questions Obama's strong mandate is a racist, of course.

[Silver Star]

Florida has been declared the winner, so the mandate becomes just a bit clearer.

I don't see how less than a 3% margin of victory and barely over 50% vote total is a mandate. A sliver above majority in popular vote is hardly a mandate.

[Member #2041]

Florida has been declared the winner, so the mandate becomes just a bit clearer.

Also, Obama's margin in the popular vote is up to 3.3 Million, and at 50.5% vs. 47.9%

BTW, that's a larger popular vote majority than Bush had over Kerry in 2004 (and of course, Gore actually carried the popular vote in 2000).

[Dickhead]

Florida has been declared the winner, so the mandate becomes just a bit clearer.