2008 Presidential Election

[NON]

I dunno, we did the math in the shoutbox last night- margin of victory in the popular vote was something like 4 - 4.5%, no?

Doesn't seem like a sweeping mandate to me.

The stats i have show a 6% popular vote spread, and a 34.6% electoral vote spread. As compared to the 2% popular spread in 2004, with one state going another way potentially having changed the outcome. Not exactly a mandate.

Also, I don't know that a 20% popular vote spread is even conceivable in modern politics. When Reagan spanked Mondale, winning all states but Minnesota and the District of Columbia, he still only did it with a 18.2% popular vote margin. He had a mandate then, and he had a mandate in 1980, when he won with 8.2million more votes than Carter, then over 9.5% points of the voting population.

I guess my point is that those numbers don't easily compare when 36.1 million more voters participated in 2008 than they did in 1980.

Gone are the days (I think) of LBJ spanking the hell out of Barry Goldwater by 22% or FDR spanking Hoover or London in double-digits, not to mention Nixon trouncing McGovern by 30% or so.

[elgoodo]

Hell, he thought he had one in 2000, when the SUPREME COURT handed him the election.

[VV]

I dunno, we did the math in the shoutbox last night- margin of victory in the popular vote was something like 4 - 4.5%, no?

Doesn't seem like a sweeping mandate to me.

Bush believed he had one, with less of a margin then that.

YEP:
No mandate? by Ed Morrissey
Robert Novak tries to make an argument that Barack Obama’s victory yesterday did not amount to a mandate, the somewhat illusory concept that Americans debate every four years after the elections conclude.  Novak insists that Obama didn’t win enough states and the Democrats didn’t win enough seats in Congress to declare a mandate:
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama’s win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
In the first place, talk of “mandates” is, and always has been, irrelevant.  What matters is whether the winning candidate has enough votes to move most of their agenda through Congress — and Obama clearly does.  He may not have enough votes in the Senate to keep Republicans from blocking everything, but he has enough for all but the most radical measures to pass.
Besides, as Jazz Shaw points out, Novak declared 2004 a “mandate” for George Bush.  In that election, Bush won fewer states, had a narrower popular-vote margin, and got a smaller Senate majority than the Democrats won last night.  Obama broke through the red/blue line that had dominated national politics over the past eight years.  If we’re talking mandates, that seems pretty clear.
But as I said, the argument about mandates is pointless.  All presidents have mandates — to pursue the policies that won them election.  Winning the election gives them that ability.  Whether they succeed is another matter entirely.

 
 
 
 

[elgoodo]

I dunno, we did the math in the shoutbox last night- margin of victory in the popular vote was something like 4 - 4.5%, no?

Doesn't seem like a sweeping mandate to me.

Bush believed he had one, with less of a margin then that.

[VV]

Didn't mean any malice? I dunno, the minute you use the words Uncle Tom, you must know how offensively that will be taken. It is a racial slur! Aside from being increasingly irrelevant he sounds utterly bitter.

My take is that Nader didn't mean any malice or have any racial animus when he made the comment. 

Oh he's definitely bitter that his own candidacy didn't gain any meaningful traction and that his policy prescriptions (anti-big business, meaningful increases in minimum wage, defense spending significantly reduced, for the people by the people) will once again be scuttled and not see the light of day -- and that he has become irrelevant and anachronistic over time.  Just conjecture on my part, but from past experiences esp. in undergraduate years, I feel like some leftist white liberals take some liberties in being overly permissive in things they say, presumably because they perceive themselves different from status quo/conservative white people and more aligned with and simpatico with marginalized groups (racial minorities, gays, etc.).  But while we're on the matter, would we consider people like Armstrong Williams, Clarence Thomas Uncle Toms as they seemingly go out of their way to preserve the status quo??  For instance, I call the closeted gays on the following site who work for the Republicans and aid and abet their policies/agenda, Uncle Homos and I've heard Sandra Bernhard refer to Sarah Palin as Uncle Woman for her not being an ally to traditional feminists or women's issues.    http://www.blogactive.com/

[duke_of_earl]

No mandate? That's debatable, but given the highest proportional voter turn out since 1908, a 7.3 million voter spread in the popular vote, and what's looking like a 186 point spread in the electoral math, exactly how much of a margin would you consider a mandate?

Just to throw out a number, I'd say a 20% popular vote margin would be safely in mandate territory.  That would be a spread of about 24 million.  I doubt if McCain/Palin would have gotten a mandate if they had the same margin.  Would you consider that Bush had a one in 2004?

Incidentally, I'd say that the Democratic congressional approval ratings should pick up just a bit to be safe.

duke

[bdlaw]

I dunno, we did the math in the shoutbox last night- margin of victory in the popular vote was something like 4 - 4.5%, no?

Doesn't seem like a sweeping mandate to me.

[VV]

Duly noted so I'll clarify.  Given the yawning gap in electoral votes and impressive lead in the popular vote; yes, he certainly appears to have a mandate.  However, it remains to be seen if he'll exercise one as I don't think he wants to alienate and polarize the right/centrists in Congress or the general populace that didn't vote for him (McCain tally not being shabby).  This is evident in past events, from unequivocally avowedly stating that he is Christian and not Muslim (rather than taking Powell's query, "No, he's not, but so what if he IS"), to AIPAC conference that Israel is sacrosanct, to his prospective list of stocking his cabinet/office (former Clintonites).  The liberal/lefty grassroots contituency that voted for him (the ones clamoring for substantive changes) should be less than sanguine as their agenda is not going to gain significant traction IMHO.  He's hamstrung to some extent for various factors but will certainly and hopefully put us on a better path than the one established by his wanton reckless predecessors.  

No mandate? by Ed Morrissey
Robert Novak tries to make an argument that Barack Obama’s victory yesterday did not amount to a mandate, the somewhat illusory concept that Americans debate every four years after the elections conclude.  Novak insists that Obama didn’t win enough states and the Democrats didn’t win enough seats in Congress to declare a mandate:
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama’s win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
The Democrats fell several votes short of the 60-vote filibuster-proof Senate that they were seeking and also failed to get rid of a key Senate target: Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
In the first place, talk of “mandates” is, and always has been, irrelevant.  What matters is whether the winning candidate has enough votes to move most of their agenda through Congress — and Obama clearly does.  He may not have enough votes in the Senate to keep Republicans from blocking everything, but he has enough for all but the most radical measures to pass.
Besides, as Jazz Shaw points out, Novak declared 2004 a “mandate” for George Bush.  In that election, Bush won fewer states, had a narrower popular-vote margin, and got a smaller Senate majority than the Democrats won last night.  Obama broke through the red/blue line that had dominated national politics over the past eight years.  If we’re talking mandates, that seems pretty clear.
But as I said, the argument about mandates is pointless.  All presidents have mandates — to pursue the policies that won them election.  Winning the election gives them that ability.  Whether they succeed is another matter entirely.

[beachmaster]

Didn't mean any malice? I dunno, the minute you use the words Uncle Tom, you must know how offensively that will be taken. It is a racial slur! Aside from being increasingly irrelevant he sounds utterly bitter.

My take is that Nader didn't mean any malice or have any racial animus when he made the comment. 

[NON]

No mandate? That's debatable, but given the highest proportional voter turn out since 1908, a 7.3 million voter spread in the popular vote, and what's looking like a 186 point spread in the electoral math, exactly how much of a margin would you consider a mandate?

My take is that Nader didn't mean any malice or have any racial animus when he made the comment.  It seems it was a snarky provocative putdown (all the more inflammatory because it was said by a white person -- Belafonte called Powell that for his lack of foresight and doing the bidding of that evil cabal of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush) meant to spur or cajole BHO to action and not just reinscribe the status quo ante of serving big business when there's been a salient theme of change/populism.  Nader just doesn't want to accept that change comes in increments and clearly subscibes to the Audre Lorde school of thought: "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House."  I think it was an inapt characterization as I personally think B is more progressive at the core but being the pragmatic and shrewd statesman he realizes he has to genuflect, appease and not rock the boat too much given the daunting limitations (no mandate and that would just send people in  a tizzy) and restrictions (building consensus across party lines) he faces. 

[VV]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06expect.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[VV]

My take is that Nader didn't mean any malice or have any racial animus when he made the comment.  It seems it was a snarky provocative putdown (all the more inflammatory because it was said by a white person -- Belafonte called Powell that for his lack of foresight and doing the bidding of that evil cabal of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush) meant to spur or cajole BHO to action and not just reinscribe the status quo ante of serving big business when there's been a salient theme of change/populism.  Nader just doesn't want to accept that change comes in increments and clearly subscibes to the Audre Lorde school of thought: "The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House."  I think it was an inapt characterization as I personally think B is more progressive at the core but being the pragmatic and shrewd statesman he realizes he has to genuflect, appease and not rock the boat too much given the daunting limitations (no mandate and that would just send people in  a tizzy) and restrictions (building consensus across party lines) he faces. 

[duke_of_earl]

Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job

November 5, 2008 | Issue 44•45

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."

[AmbushBug]

I just don't understand... did he not realize that the phrase was offensive or did he just not care?

I think Ralph long ago forgot that just because you can say (or do) something, doesn't mean you ought to. Yes, it's a smart play on words (I guess), but that doesn't make it a smart thing to say. Sorta like how running as a third party protest candidate is a good idea, unless one of those two parties is putting up an idiot manchild who'll bring the country to its knees.

[nikki]

I have never been more happy that I chickened out and never voted for this man.

Fuck you Nader.

Wow.  I tried, cause I liked Nader, but there is no way to put that in a good light.  Even if he believed that it was the right choice of words, he should really have backed off.  I noticed he's been slowly going off the deep end over the past few years...

duke

I just don't understand... did he not realize that the phrase was offensive or did he just not care?

[Soshin]

Animal glue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An animal glue is an adhesive that is created by prolonged boiling of animal connective tissue.

These protein colloid glues are formed through hydrolysis of the collagen from skins, bones, tendons, and other tissues, similar to gelatin. The word "collagen" itself derives from Greek kolla, glue. These proteins form a molecular bond with the glued object.

Stereotypically, the animal in question is a horse, and horses that are put down are often said to have been sent to the "glue factory".

THIS IS WHERE RALPH NADER BELONGS NOW.  HIS RACING DAYS ARE OVER.  PLEASE TAKE HIM AWAY BEFORE HE DOES ANY MORE DAMAGE TO HIS OTHERWISE STERLING REPUTATION.  THANKS....

[duke_of_earl]

I have never been more happy that I chickened out and never voted for this man.

Fuck you Nader.

Wow.  I tried, cause I liked Nader, but there is no way to put that in a good light.  Even if he believed that it was the right choice of words, he should really have backed off.  I noticed he's been slowly going off the deep end over the past few years...

duke

[TheFang]

I have never been more happy that I chickened out and never voted for this man.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ibsP6XN2dIo&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ibsP6XN2dIo&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

Fuck you Nader.

[Soshin]

Once again, Hollywood has shown us the way:



 

Yes and now a giant asteroid is hurtling towards the Statue of Liberty, thanks a lot Hollywood! 

[MCA™]

Once again, Hollywood has shown us the way:



 

[Kindelan]

I now present.....

Jersey City's own.....

KOOL & THE GANG!!!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZmOQyyezwCQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ZmOQyyezwCQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

[RB]

I do want to thank NON, elgoodo, Kindelan, and JC_i for their efforts to help the Obama campaign and anyone else I left out.

I left out Kindelan and jc_i before. Sorry about that, and thanks!

[Frank M]

Now can we please get back to being naturally suspicious of the President and the Executive Office?  Sheesh.

[kitten]

I do want to thank NON, elgoodo, Kindelan, and JC_i for their efforts to help the Obama campaign and anyone else I left out.

Also, I want to thank all of you for making this process interesting for me by talking mostly about stuff that was relevant and for making me believe again that our system works. For the longest time (8 years), or maybe even longer, I felt that politics in our country was "their" game. I no longer feel that way.

And, a shout out to TheFang who kept this thread interesting AND educational for me!

[TheFang]

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

James Madison, The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)
Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787