If Obama wins all the states in the Pollster.com likely/lean plus two or three of the traditionally solid Republican toss-ups, e.g. IN, NC, MT, MO, ND then he will be in with 330 plus EV's and that is a mandate in anyone's book.

But as David points out our accelerated news cycle and cult of personality makes such things fleeting and the public's approval can be fickle.

The first 100 days of an Obama Administration (God, that sounds good to say) are going to be critical. What initiatives is he going to focus on pushing through first?

If he can reign in the instincts of the party to go overboard and produce two or three pieces of legislation that show at least some bi-partisan support and that look to be broadly effective; if he can avoid any early gaffes of overreaching (remember the Clinton gays in the military missteps?) then he buys himself goodwill and margin for error going forward with bolder strokes.

It seems to me that Obama's mandate will obviously and primarily be based on the issues he has campaigned on. Thus, a vote for Obama is a vote for "new politics," alternative energy, refocused war on terror, constitutional government, and policies that support and expand the Middle Class. To the extent that Obama's fundraising has freed him from corporate influence so typical in our modern politics, it is a mandate for a greater emphasis on people rather than the corporate bottom line.

I think to some extent Obama's mandate will be shaped by the campaign McCain himself has run, in the sense that the nation will have rejected divisive politics and race baiting. This aspect of a "mandate" could be amplified by congressional losses, in the sense that if Michelle Bachmann, Robin Hayes, and Liddy Dole go down to defeat, such politics will be given some blame for the loss. And to a certain extent the public will have implicitly rejected the extreme capitalist argument (in favor of more "socialism") forwarded by the McCain campaign and Republicans generally.

The fact that Obama wins in a landslide will only serve to put some teeth in an Obama administration and cause greater cowering by the opposition, especially among Republicans.

I believe the 30-minute advertisement was in part meant to define Obama's mandate. He can now claim that he went nationwide with a fairly explicit statement of specific policy initiatives he wants to implement. And, when he wins by a huge margin, he will claim to have a mandate from the people to do those things he promised. I expect the inaugural speech to reference the same laundry list, and help set his agenda for the first two years (which is the prime window of opportunity).

-- ARG

Thinking in terms of a specific "mandate" misses some of the larger significance of this election. This is likely to be an election that fits nicely into the critical realignment perspective.

In brief, critical realignment theory begins with the premise of a vibrant social and economic system paired with a relatively static political system: our Constitution is an 18th Century document, and sets up a rather antique division of labor in the political branches. It purposely makes it difficult to effect new political programs. Once a party gets in power, it tends to do things to perpetuate that power, contributing to stasis. Given the vibrant social and economic system it is paired with, the political party system is prone of periodic upheavals.

The upheavals in the past have been tied to the elections of Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and FDR. Each of these is identified with an era of politics that persisted for a good thirty to forty years of so. Thus we can identify the "Age of Jackson", or the New Deal Era.

One of the controversies (among many) of more recent developments is what happened to the purported next realigning election. It was due to occur around 1968 or so. But that saw the continuation of Democrats in Congress, paired with Nixon. It does not look like a "classic" realignment. And then we must question whether the Reagan era fits within this rubric as well. Some argue that 1968 was a sort of realignment: it indicated a decline in trust for government. Others pin the end of the New Deal era with the imploding of the Carter Administration and the rise of Reaganism, centered on the election of 1980. Complicating these assessments is the change in voting patters of Southerners. Before 1964, no respectable Southerner would vote Republican. The shift to conservative Republicanism by Southerners took a generation, but by the mid-1990's the shift was pretty much complete. Note that realignment theory suggests a rapid change in political alignments, and the change in party affiliation of southern conservatives involved a number of shocks as well as gradual change. Phil Gramm's conversion to the Republican Party after having first been elected as a Texas Democrat is symptomatic of this.

What does this suggest for the present? We cannot know whether this will be a realigning election. But I suspect it will be. And race is again an issue. But in this case it will be race as a redepemption of the sins of our political and social history. That sin will die with convulsions. That is what we are seeing right now: the use of race code words to scare people from voting for Obama. If it does not work, then the likelihood of doing this in the future decreases. If an Obama administration is successful, then the power of such appeals will be lessened.

More to the point as to the general significance of the Obama Administration, it will likely have an extraordinary opportunity to attempt to reconstruct American politics. This is the lesson of other reconstructionist presidents: Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan. What exactly will be the program it is difficult to know. We could not have known what FDR would do, during the election of 1932. After all, his National Recovery Act of the first New Deal placed business and labor under the supervision of Government approved industry codes. That amounted to national corporatism, and was struck down by the Supreme Court. Only then did we see the National Labor Relations Act and Social Security (both 1935 acts).

We are at a game changing moment. The faith in free market economics is gone -- one need note only Greenspan's recent comments to be sure of this. What will follow is not clear. But I have immense faith in this man Obama. He is incredibly smart. And he knows that, if elected, he will have immense opportunity to reconstruct American politics, building on what exists at this moment in history. And I look forward to seeing this happen.

Senator Obama would have a mandate to "reverse engine" on the most egregious of the Bush decisions. The economy, now in recession, must be first. The "out of Iraq and shift to Afghanistan" will be second. He can then work with a Congress throughout the spring to get moving on energy independence.

I contend that the whole notion of a mandate is outdated. In a total information 24/7/365 world, one can only "rent" the space on top of the political news cycle. We don't do "dynasties" anymore.

Personally, I've been thinking of Obama's mandate less in terms of concrete accomplishments and more in terms of attitude. Our conservative friends have waged a long war on the very concept of a "common good." I suppose that war has been pretty successful, seeing as how we're on the brink of common misery at the moment. If Obama can restore that notion of shared responsibility, of all of us having a stake in how the country is doing, then that will be a big step forward. (Or back, since "common good" was taken more-or-less for granted not that long ago.)

That's the real change I'm looking for. A generation of sabotage is not going to be undone in a mere 8 years -- assuming we're fortunate enough to have two full terms of an Obama presidency.

A transformation in the Democratic Party would also be nice. The Democrats have danced around the real nature of the GOP ever since Reagan came to power. I'd like to see a sweeping victory down ticket translate into telling the simple and unpalatable truths about our friends on the right. (Michelle Bachman was right about some members of congress holding un-American attitudes - another case of classic Republican projection.) I'd like the Democratic leadership to feel like they have a mandate to defend their own policies. I'd like them to understand that it's perfectly acceptable to point out to the American people that most of them endorse the policies and principles espoused by the Democrats.

And I'd really like to see the crimes of the Bush administration and the GOP in general investigated as just that - crimes. (How does an organized conspiracy to interfere with the rights of citizens to vote not fall under RICO?)

I think this question is much harder than equating the mandate to be whatever Obama's policies are. Is there a large mandate for net neutrality if Obama wins big? I would like to say yes, but the reality is that issue is probably not a major basis for an Obama win. I think the mandate has to be tied to the major reasons people have actually picked one man over the other and those may not relate to Obama's policies. Further exit polling will be able to inform this discussion obviously but without the aid of that info, I think the following should be considered:

0. A yes vote on focusing economic policy to help the non-wealthy (economy, economy, economy).

1. A yes vote for positive campaigning and a no vote on fear-based negative character attacks in campaigns (no on southern strategy, guilt-by-association attacks, etc.).

2. A no vote on rehashing many 60's issues and yes on generational change (goodbye to the Vietnam-era issues like draft dodging, Ayers, drug use, swift boats, POWs, etc.).

3. A yes vote for moving on to the next stage in race relations even if what that entails isn't clear yet (goodbye to southern strategy, race-baiting, and maybe as a unintended consequence affirmative action).

4. A yes vote on getting out of Iraq.

5. A yes vote for some action on healthcare reform (if that means true universal care I don't think is clear).

6. A yes vote on the importance of being liked -- we want the U.S. to be respected/liked again (goodbye to embarrassment of Bush to the rest of the world).

7. A no vote on a lop-sided conservative high court.

There are probably more but I see the above list as being a high-level checklist of the big themes that most likely moved voters to vote the way they will (or did). Obviously, some of these "mandates" relate more to political method and process and less to substantive policy mandates but they are important nonetheless. Overall, I think the mandate is why voters voted not what the candidate actually said or promoted as a policy (sometimes that is the same thing, sometimes its different).

I'll keep it simple. I believe Obama will:

* To signify an end to partisanship, he'll include Republicans in his administration in a few significant positions,
* To fulfill the public's desire for leadership, he'll ask the American people for sacrifice, in lowering consumption, increasing savings, helping others. Peace Corp, Americorps-type organizations will be encouraged.
* Signal foreign governments that it's time for diplomacy, not war. He knows that USSR was bankrupted by military spending, and he'll try to reign in the hawks and lower the defense budget. Obviously, he'll End the War in Iraq to fulfill his campaign promise.
* Re-create in a smaller way, the WPA, by increasing spending in infrastructure as a way to create more jobs in the middle, working class.
* Health care: Unless he can change the attitude of America, from an "it's all about me" to an "it's all about us" atmosphere, universal health care, doesn't stand a chance.

Truly, I believe Obama sees that the average American is looking for a president they can be proud of, again. One who assumes the role of leadership and asks Americans to do good deeds for the common good. It's a multi-genrational attitude that I am doubtful he can accomplished, but is it not a worthy goal to try?

DrDebt

"One of the most toxic effects of the decline of the two parties as political institutions and the rise of the modern TV-based political campaign, with its cult of personality politics, is that the election becomes a referendum on the candidates themselves, rather than on broad policies or platforms."

Hmm. Maybe that's not so toxic. At least not for the time being anyway. Maybe the mandate the nation will(hopefully)give to this candidate really is simply about character. Maybe all we want is to have our government run by people of a higher quality of character than what we're used to. Instead of greedy self serving opportunists, we are looking for level headed statesmen. You know, people who are actually concerned with the well being of the country.

The smartest quote about governments I know is De Toqueville's assertion that every people has the government they deserve. To accept that means that we truly deserved everything we got over the last 8 years. Well then, good on us for getting off our asses and endeavoring to deserve better.

Of all the choices we've had since the primaries began, we seem to have consistently fought for the guy who is smart, hard-working, graduated at the top of his class, but also turned down the high-powered Wall Street job to return home and serve his community. Only a true cynic could see that bio as a secret ambition to take control of the country years later. Even if Obama were that self-servingly power hungry, he is also too smart to make such an absurd gamble. No, despite all the noise generated by our nation's more fearful nature, this is clearly a good, decent, sincere person. That's what America seems to want. That's what we seem to be demanding. And hopefully, that's what we're going to get.

One of the many benefits that could come from such a mandate might be the rebirth, maybe years from now, of a Republican party that follows suit in order to be competitive. As the remaining intellectuals and people of good conscience are finally beginning to turn in anger on their own party, maybe, just maybe, in a future version of the GOP, trying to trick people like Joe "the Plumber" into voting against their best interest, will prove to be an impractical election strategy.

Wouldn't that be nice?

I'm pretty sure we're green lighting a totalitarian Marxist regime that can do whatever it wants;)

Seriously, the first order of business will be the middle class tax cuts and stimulus package. (Something that neither side mentions is that the tax adjustments on the wealthy won't happen until Bush's temporary tax cuts expire in a couple of years.)

Second, will be health care reform. Work will begin in the first 100 days with a program in place before the end of year one.

Energy and environmental programs will begin with study and planning early on and be implemented over the course of four years.

That's what we're voting for. That and a program of mandatory abortions of course;)

It seems to me that the mandate was about the political process as much as anything. Three things there:

1) National politics based on local workers in every precinct around the country first and money second.
2) Politics based on policy first, and personality second.
3) Politics based on meeting goals rather than appeasing dogmas.

Obama changed the way campaigns were run. He mobilized millions of small donors and volunteers to run the backbone of his campaign. He ran in places no one thought were competitive, like my state of NC. So I think the mandate was in part against big donor, robosleaze politics.

Obama focused on policy differences first. When I attended the first house meeting, there were position papers throughout the house. Obama has put his position down on many issues and focused his volunteer's efforts on policy first. John McCain has continued to use personality to contradict policy and relied on right wing think tanks, talk radio, robocalls, megachurches and 527s to do all the work.

Lastly, Obama has focused on goals such as providing health care and providing jobs. Rather than preaching a dogma to Joe the Plumber, Obama respected his question and explored ways to solve his problem. Obama came off as a grown up, while McCain comes off as a whining demagogue, spouting right wing dogma about "socialism."

Unless we change our politics, we cannot hope to change our government. Unless we change our government, we cannot hope to change our system. Unless we change our system, we deprive our children of hope for a future. It all starts by changing how politics works. Barack has already done that and the success of it will promote it to others, I hope. That is a mandate worth the price.

Broadly, a return to Keynesian economics and global security alliances. More narrowly, an exit from Iraq and focus on the threat from Al Qaeda, a green energy program (maybe as big as moon mission or Manhattan project), and healthcare reform.

The GOP will get a mandate from the voters too. Stop obsessing over culture war issues. Let people be people and get out of their personal lives. Also, tamp down the xenophobia.

Obama has a mandate to end the dictatorship of the neocons. He will do this by ending the policy of exporting democracy by force of arms, by stopping the erosion of entitlements, by strengthening the influence of labor, and ending the deliberate bankrupting of the US economy that is part of the “starve the beast” ideology.
He will move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan, where he will pursue al Qaida and the Taliban.
He will bring us closer to our allies, and bring about detente with our adversaries, although their diplomats and leaders will attempt to outsmart him at first.
He will also bring about radical change in healthcare, and the dire predictions of the right will come to pass: The US will eventually go to single payer, government sponsored healthcare.
He will revive many concepts of the New Deal, and return the US to its status as the “Shining City on The Hill.”
He will create an energy policy that resembles the so called “planned economy” of so many other nations instead of waiting for the vagaries of free enterprise and the OPEC oligopoly to move our economy up and down like a yo-yo.
He will break some promises because of the deficit crises, and keep some because of the recession-fighting need for deficit spending.

I did not read everyone's response to the ads, but from my take it says this, I am a black man and I am not even voting for Obama. What does this mean? Whose to guess, but a black American man said he is not voting for Obama so that must mean something.

The sheer ignorance this sort of advertisement is aimed at probably banks on the viewer never asking the question, "so what is this guy for?"

A mandate for what? To be a neolib who will seem like a true liberal when put against the backdrop against the Bush years?

Remember, the rumored top three Treasury picks of Obama are reportedly:
1. Keep Paulson on;
2. Rehire Larry Summers;
3. Tap NY Fed head Tim Geithner.

Starting with the fact all three are Goldman Sachs alums, does that say "real change" to you?

Not to me.

I'm betting many Kool-aid drinkers will be roundly disillusioned the next four years.

But, as I voted Green, I won't be.

Electoral mandates are an invention.
They can be or not be whatever anyone wants.

The danger in declaring a mandate, is that it opens the discussion of whether the declaration is true or not. There is political danger to governing there.

Obama, his team and the Democratic party would be better suited to declare "VICTORY" for themselves and the American people and move on with the process of governing.

Obama has repeatedly identified his priorities - such that anyone of us could repeat them.

bottom line - ignore the mandate mayhem and move on.

Obama will not have a mandate for much and that has a been a problem from day one. None of his "proposals" represent much more than the standard Democratic proposals on every major issue. He has tied it all together with his popular but incredibly naive rhetoric about working with the Republicans in united fashion. This uniting with those assholes idea is pure malarky.

Obama has talked changed and proposed corporate/centrist policies that will not do what people think they will do. Obama has talked about making big changes but really proposed no big changes. His campaign has been almost an exact rerun of Kerry's 2004 campaign with two exceptions: 1. Kerry actually tried to fight back in the final couple of weeks and Obama has not done that at all, and 2. The economic crisis has saved Obama's chances in the face of the totally false but withering barrage of smears and lies launched by McCain/Palin.

That Obama has almost entirely allowed the Republicans to smear him at will with on response and has said almost nothing about the corruption, lies and criminality of the Republicans throughout this campaign is pretty outrageous. I am voting for him. I wish him well. I hope between now and being sworn in he comes to realize how naive and foolish his "lets all get along" approach really is and that his proposals for tiny, incremental changes are not what the times demand. We shall see.

But mandate? Even if he wins in a landslide he will have a mandate for very few specific policies. It's very likely that if elected, Obama's presidency will end up much like Jimmy Carters: right on many issues but paralyzed by a lack of control over Congressional Democrats, being under incessant attack from the Republicans on any and eveything and accomplishing little. I hope I am wrong about it all.

Assuming Obama wins an electoral landslide, there won't be any mandate except to NOT BE LIKE BUSH! Obama could have had a mandate to get out of Iraq but he's moved away from the opposition to the war he showed when he first started running. He hasn't staked out any particular issue. The only thing he's run on is that he's NOT LIKE BUSH!

No particular mandate, except to change everything. :-)

(Sorry for the length. I'd been thinking about this before the question was posed.)

I’m left awash in a sea of confusion when I read words like “mandate,” “change” “transformation,” and a multitude of synonyms for “goodness” that are usually tied to some particular interest that can be utopian or parochial. Is the basic question “what next or where do we go from here” or is the basic question “what just happened and what does it really mean?” or is it something we do not know how to articulate? There is also the very concrete question “What is really possible?”

We will learn a great deal about who we are as a people on November 4th whether Barack Obama wins or loses but even that won’t represent some universal truth. There are over 300,000,000 “Americans” and neither do they think alike nor will the election resolve any of the issues that are most divisive—so divisive, in fact, that some view them as a valid reason to forgo politics, which requires dialog leading to agreement, and to threaten violence, which either labels some other as a mortal enemy or someone that deserves to be oppressed.

I think that this election is very much about our commitment to the basic tenets of civilization, which means forgoing violence and accepting a certain amount of personal discomfort in order to reduce the level of chaos, to feel reasonably secure in every respect and to have a life, which means more than mere survival. More concretely it is about our political life and institutions, that is, how we make decisions and how we implement and continually evaluate both the decisions and the outcomes of our plans and actions.

If elected, I hope Barack Obama starts saying that this is about us, meaning all of us, instead of making it about him as president and us as the electorate. I don’t want him asking what we can do for our country anymore than I want to ask what my country can do for me. I want to hear the constant reminder that it is our government, our political system and it is we who are responsible and accountable for how well it works. I think this election is about who we are and not who either of the candidates is.

Who we elect will say something about us, not just as citizens but also as human beings. Electing Barack Obama will make a huge statement, one that I wish did not have to be made. Superficial distinctions of all kinds are used to deny people their humanity and to then oppress them. If we elect Barack Obama, it will be a historical event. For many people who have suffered during the imperial and colonial expansions of the past few centuries, it will be a clear sign that we the people of the United States of America can cease to behave the way it has recently. It will have a similar meaning for a large portion of this country, particularly those whose ancestors were brought here as slaves. I don’t expect some dramatic transformation as a result but a huge statement will have been made.

I’ve lived long enough to literally see the Watts area of Los Angeles burning and to hear the gunshots echoing through the neighborhoods. Jack Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated during my childhood and adolescent years. There was an attempt to assassinate Ronald Reagan and George Wallace. I’ve been there when there were police and troops in the streets and on the campus and tear gas swirling in the air.

I’d like to think that this will not be the case on November 5th but it may. I know it can happen. It happens every time the political process breaks down. We know it has not been working and I think we are afraid that it will fail next week. Those fears are not ungrounded but they do not have to come to pass: The election in South Africa that ended apartheid ended up occurring in a remarkably calm and civil manner. Those most involved feared massive violence. They cannot tell you why peace prevailed. They can only report that it did. Let’s hope that is the case in this election. What underlies bigotry and racism is a really big deal. An economic crisis is not enough to cause a shift in behavior in this case. People have to say, “Enough. No more of this.” They have to reaffirm the core values of civilization.

Rather than making up a wish list for the next president, make one up for your Representative and Senators. Let them know what you think the priorities should be. Let the next President know that you’d like him to spent 15 minutes listening to each member of Congress and make transition staff available to them if more details or concerns need to be shared. I’d like to see the next president find out what we want and what is possible to achieve. I’m uncomfortable with the idea of the President having a mandate. I’d like the legislative process to work. Most of all I’d like to see the next government, meaning all three branches, show that we can be decent human beings—not exceptional or special or out to save humanity from itself, just ordinary, decent people—both within our national boundaries and in our relations with the rest of the people on this planet.

All I’m really saying is to reflect a bit on the real meaning of this election and what it means if Barack Obama wins. I think far more is at stake than any particular program or problem. I think we are going to learn something about who we are.

I think a more usefull question is this:

How many congresspersons are going to volunteer to run against the Obama campaign organization in their next primary?

I agree that economic stability is the first priority, and I think it's the primary test in the minds of the electorate. As complex as "the economy" is, stabilizing it will require several discrete steps, including at least these:

1. Exercising control over the bailout so that those funds are utilized to restore liquidity and unfreeze credit lines. IOW, only give money to banks that will use it to fund new loans, not to pay bonuses or acquire new assets (like buying out weaker competitors).

2. Revive sensible regulation and oversight of financial institutions and markets. This can be commenced immediately by simply enforcing the regulations that remain after the Reagan-Bush deregulation orgy. I suggest that auditing the use of bailout funds & loans already disbursed and forcing the repayment of funds misused (think AIG) will both send a message to future recipients and dramatically increase public support for re-regulation that will restore some balance and accountability.

3. Implement the "stimulus" tax policies BO has proposed (job creation credits, middle-class tax cuts) as emergency measures so the impact on liquidity will be jump-started. Whether some of this can be done by executive order and agency rule-making or whether it requires legislation I don't know, but it needs to be done asap.

4. Immediately close the "offshore income" tax loopholes. If you use the laws, institutions and infrastructure of the US to generate income, you pay tax on it. Again, executive orders and agency regulation may be able to accomplish some of this faster than legislation.

5. Establish a moratorium on foreclosures and a feasible means of restructuring that debt so the burden of the (invevitable) losses are equitably shared across the economy (lenders and borrowers all lose something, but regain stability and avoid financial ruin). IIRC, Obama has proposed a 90-day moratorium. That may not be enough time, but I doubt it can go more than 180 days without destroying too much confidence.

6. End the wars. While I believe there is some legitimate need for foreign defense and intelligence spending, it's become a financial sinkhole since we "won" the Cold War. There is simply no valid justification for elective war (i.e., the Bush Doctrine). Eliminate the outsourcing of "security" to private contractors - if we need it done, WE should do it, with our own national forces. This, of course, is a long-term project, but the potential savings are massive.

7. Energy policy must become a permanent national priority. Efficiency and independence are the only base that can support long term stability. Along with expansion and reinvention of current energy technology, investment in a green economy will create new industry and new jobs.

This list is not exhaustive, but it will provide a good start and, IMHO, all of these steps are necessary.

I submit a ten fold plan that can be accomplished with a mandate from the people.

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY
Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Work toward increased public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. Work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

2. SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment. Consciously confront barriers such as racism and class oppression, sexism and homophobia, ageism and disability, which act to deny fair treatment and equal justice under the law.

3. ECOLOGICAL WISDOM
Human societies must operate with the understanding that we are part of nature, not separate from nature. We must maintain an ecological balance and live within the ecological and resource limits of our communities and our planet. We must support a sustainable society which utilizes resources in such a way that future generations will benefit and not suffer from the practices of our generation. To this end we must practice agriculture which replenishes the soil; move to an energy efficient economy; and live in ways that respect the integrity of natural systems.

4. NON-VIOLENCE
It is essential that effective alternatives to society’s current patterns of violence are developed. We must work to demilitarize, and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, without being naive about the intentions of other governments.
Recognize the need for self-defense and the defense of others who are in helpless situations. Promote non-violent methods to oppose practices and policies with which we disagree, and will guide our actions toward lasting personal, community and global peace.

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, supporting a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system is needed. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

6. COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
It is essential to create a vibrant and sustainable economic system, one that can create jobs and provide a decent standard of living for all people while maintaining a healthy ecological balance. A successful economic system will offer meaningful work with dignity, while paying a “living wage” which reflects the real value of a person’s work.
Local communities must look to economic development that assures protection of the environment and workers’ rights; broad citizen participation in planning; and enhancement of our “quality of life.” Independently owned and operated companies which are socially responsible, as well as co-operatives and public enterprises that distribute resources and control to more people through democratic participation should be supported.

7. FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY
Having inherited a social system based on male domination of politics and economics, we call for more cooperative ways of interacting that respect differences of opinion and gender. Human values such as equity between the sexes, interpersonal responsibility, and honesty must be developed with moral conscience. Remember that the process that determines our decisions and actions is just as important as achieving the outcome we want.

8. RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY
The belief that it is important to value cultural, ethnic, racial, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity, and to promote the development of respectful relationships across these lines is high on an agenda for the future.
The many diverse elements of society should be reflected in our organizations and decision-making bodies, and we should support the leadership of people who have been traditionally closed out of leadership roles. We acknowledge and encourage respect for other life forms than our own and the preservation of biodiversity.

9. PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY
Encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being and, at the same time, to enhance ecological balance and social harmony. The Federal government should seek to join with people and organizations around the world to foster peace, economic justice, and the health of the planet.

10. FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY
Our actions and policies should be motivated by long-term goals. We seek to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or “unmaking” all waste we create, while developing a sustainable economics that does not depend on continual expansion for survival. We must counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible to future generations who will inherit the results of our actions.

Collapse? Worse than the seventies? Foreign threats worse than the Cold War?

Try doubling unemployment. Try quadrupling bank interest. Try being told we're going to Afghanistan not to fight a bunch of people on horseback slinging scavenged weaponry but that we're taking entire Soviet Union who had 4 - 5 times as many tanks as we did. Oh yeah, They DID HAVE WMD! Try a market that could not react enough to lower oil prices to a palatable level. I have lived and experienced both.

We just look worse in the press now.

That said, of course we have a lot of work to do. We have seen what the relationship between gov't and big business can do when the bridle comes off. Power always get seized as soon as a handle gets exposed.

Just bridle your own response. Make it a response and not a reaction. Gov't exploits power as much as any other movement with the added problem being that you cannot fire government programs. They just keep on growing. So make your response count and make it reasonable.

Make your response a way of life. Nobody's a racist nor the Devil. Talk facts. Listen. Introduce info, don't club people with beliefs.

Know your friends and like thinkers well but know your enemies and the other "camp" better. OT, not in the sense that you're looking for "gotcha" lines/evidence to throw in their face.

The alternative merely is a better sounding Choir.

I am immediately cautious when anyone, no matter how close to my political ideals, acts under the guidance of some supposed civic mandate. As D Kurtz correctly points out, those ephemeral mandates are indicative to ideas and judgements "against" something, a test of the body politic's "mood." At the same time that these mandates are universally understood, they are not very definitive as any one, or set of, majority policy. As the lead thread's and Kurtz's posts suggests, this mandate is the exasperated stigmata the people bare for the behavior and tone of our government, rather than an unquestionable call for universal health care or any number of growing populist rhetoric. As simple statements might suggest, mandates are the peoples way of saying "we are worried, we are anxious, we are tired of, we are not astute enough - we are not in surety of any sum policy, and from these anxieties we think this person/group/leader is most able to lead us towards honor, comfort and stability. We give them our trust - show us what you can do." Suffragist leaders, union leaders, human rights leaders, led by mandate not by policy.

With all that idealistic cr*p said, I raise the flag of caution because even the most honorific of mandates and their leaders will sooner or later face an juxtapositional ground swell (women's vote:anti ERA). This caution calls for leaders to act as Vanguards not Demagogues and I apologize for these character laden terms. Unless these mandates are then parcel to government regulations, laws and statutes, there is no way to enforce, judge or defend these mandates. Because I would never assume some natural path towards social fairness (in all honesty, humans are very horrible people), it is only through laws that we can have promise (or failure) to a public mandate. Unless we had the Bill of Rights, et al, would I be at ease with the actual solidity of such Natural Law mandates - and from here, arguments that other statutes might actually erode or frame the levees of Natural Law flow. The proof is in the pudding.

If Obama rides the swell of this mandate to the Presidency and then produces no effective laws that, using the lead post's definition of this mandate, effectively brings parity to public and business interests, and establishes appropriate governmental guidelines to its role - then he fails. Historical judgement and arguments can then argue about this however they want. I think it's within these criticisms that lay the definitive body politic rather than any swelling mandate. Let's focus on the policies, mandates come and go as the call for less/more tuns into the call for more/less.

I remember the '94 Gingrich Republican Conservative Mandate (and of course people argue the actual honesty of this mandate - as should be), especially its definitive disjunct in my state of Massachusetts. As such (argue as you may), the mandate allowed for the re-election of both Governor Weld and Senator Kennedy - yet the actual force of our body politic continued to skew towards liberal and Kennedy (fact: we still don't have a death penalty and we still hold the balancing anchor of Kennedy in the Senate against ultra-conservatives as necessary even though most of the State is not represented by those Cambridge-Red as we are often defined(not in the least! see Bain Capital and Romney)).

So how does this answer the question, what is Obama's mandate? It probably doesn't except by calling for the dissolution of any actual power of mandate since it is just going to turn into some "straw man" argument (I hate that term). Expect more from Obama than just being able to define and manipulate the mandate no matter how politically powerful it may be.
Sorry, that was damn long.

It is truly scary reading the ravings of you leftwing nuts. A post-capitalist America? You mean a communist America? I wish you would campaign on that idea! Have you people ever considered the impact of a single payer health system? I got news for you, for the vast bulk of posters here, you will get significantly WORSE medical care. That's right. Sure, the homeless will get better care. But others will get a lower standard of care to compensate. Care will be rationed. You will face life threatening waits for treatment, and certain 'gold standard' procedures will be replaced with more cost effective ones. Like xrays instead of MRI's, tooth pulling instead of crowns. Ask people in the UK or Canada. One example, waiting times for angioplasty in Canada exceed 6 months. In the US, next day treatment. Enjoy dying for your liberal ideals.

W. proved that you can do anything without a mandate if you can get your party to vote lock step with you. Now we know that Democrats, as a rule, don't do that, but I think that Obama can cajole them into voting for change. It is a very tall order but that is why we are voting for him, isn't it?