Mandate? Fuck Yeah
Okay, people - give it up for the Democrats! Fuck yeah! Time to use the M word, MANDATE, but hard, before the punditocrocacy pushes us down to “M is for Mediocrity”.
Remember the Reagan Revolution? Reagan 1980 won by a margin of 9.7%. Obama won by 6.5%. Not a lot of difference, and I’d easily handicap him 3.2% for being black. (George Bush lost the popular vote by 0.5% the first time, and won by only 2.4% the second.) Want to bicker about electoral votes? I’ll go to the House to assess real voter preference for party.
House Election Map
See at all that blue in the middle? Lower Rockies, Rio Grande, upper plains, middle Southern Cotton Belt? ‘Tweren’t there 4 years ago. Dems
have risen from 202 to 255, while Reps have dropped - let’s say sunk like an anchor - from 232 to 177
during that time - a swing of 108 votes. Ain’t that a voter switch, a Mandate? Fuck yeah. Three of every five districts prefers us.
In the House we’re up to 255 seats, a 59.4% to 40.6% margin. The Republicans MAX in the last hundred years was 236 under the “Gingrich Revolution”, and most of the time they were skimming by just over 50%.We haven’t had this many seats since 1980, when we dropped from 277 to 242 with the Carter hangover.
The Senate? We’re at 55 plus 2 independents with 3 seats to be decided. The max the Republicans ever had? 55. And most of the time skinnying along at 49 or so. Give a few weeks, and we should have a blok of 59 to 41. Mandate? Fuck yeah.
Governors? A swing of 7 states in the last 3 years. Come January it’ll be 29 Democrat, 21 Republican. Almost 3 of every 5.
So say it proud: Democrats? Fuck Yeah! Mandate? Fuck Yeah! You bought it - Own it. Peace, outta here.
Not just winning votes. Winning ideas. Fuck yeah.
November 10, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mandate? I'm sayin' realignment, baby!
November 10, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like something you do to your car.
Need it short and catchy for Evening News. They're dumb as a rock, but they do have good diction.
November 10, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck yeah!
November 10, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure mandate is the proper positioning since they have negative connotations in this country.
I say why call it anything and just move forward with implementing the platform that Barack campaigned on, continuing to convince those that didn't vote for him to press their Congress Critters to support our broad, national agenda.
Barack isn't out their waving the mandate flag in his opponents faces. He is inviting them to join the party and contribute to how the final solutions take shape.
I say this is really just an opportunity to set a new baseline for the center of this country using Barack as the measure. A center that can hold against the extremes of ideology that "mandates" usually usher in on the left and right.
November 10, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because the Republicans and press are already pushing the "there's no mandate, they have to give in/run bi-partisan" meme.
Democrats don't do mandates. We just sit there and get shit thrown at us.
November 10, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you can govern as if there was a mandate and never utter the word. As republican ideologues continue to act as if the democrats are being unreasonable, they will lose influence in their own party.
If democrats simply ignore the bleats from the cheap seats and push forward with Barack's well-defined platform, we will have a country we can all be proud of, no matter what you call the process that got us there. I don't think that progressive changes last if they are forced down the throat of those that might have slightly different ideas on how to get there. Convince your "enemies" that everything you want to do is really their idea. That's the way to get things done, though it does make it more difficult to claim credit.
All "mandates" do is impose extremes on an already fragile governing system and ensure we all fail with simply a different driver running us into the ditch this time.
November 10, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mandate.
November 10, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. I guess I would compare it to the idea that Barack's winning the primary gave him a mandate to dismiss Hillary's 18 million in crafting the democratic platform. That didn't happen because it didn't make sense. Nothing short of double-digit victories should be considered mandates and possibly not even then.
November 10, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mandate. :-)
November 10, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mandate! Why must Democrats cave even in the face of victory? And compromise even when we have the leverage? They need to compromise with us, not the other way around. Watering down principles in the name of bipartisanship may change the tone in Washington, but it will also ensure every little gets done so that mandate the people gave us to do the things Obama promised will quickly fade away.
And as a side note: Mandate. Man. Date. Another of those amazing discoveries of other things in life besides politics now that the election is over. :)
November 10, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
We expect steamy details and a lot more daily diaries than you've been posting. Of course with the new TPM, photo documentaries work too...
November 10, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Not sure that fits with Josh's vision of TPM Cafe 2009 :) Besides I already have a video diary of my dates on an alternate site.
November 10, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was you? Anyway, we can push the edge better than that, Josh or no Josh. (Or maybe you can become the mystery blogger at Billy's, "The Annals of Sin" or somesuch, have to work on the marketing. Do you happen to know how to talk backwards in a Satanic voice?
November 10, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite what Jason and other Republicans think, the people have given Obama a mandate. The election does not mean the country is center-right.
What Obama now needs to do is corral the idiot Democrats in Congress (yes, there are some). Because Democrats are the Democrats' worst enemy.
Btw, I'd like to take credit for this very idea on a different thread. The country has given Obama and the Democrats a green light. It's not a red light. It's not a yellow light. It's green. And green means Go already!
November 10, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree Gasket - although I'm not sure who'll need more prodding to go forth with our mandate - Obama or Pelosi/Reid?
November 10, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi/Reid. That's why Obama picked Emanuel.
November 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should have picked me. The Enforcer. I like this game.
November 10, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think a 52 to 46 percent victory in the popular vote means the country has given Obama a green light to pursue a hyper-liberal version of the neoconservatives agenda you are mistaken. This country is no more far left than it is far right and Obama's election proves that.
He was by far the most conservative democrat running, no matter what critiques say about his so-called liberal voting record. In fact, I seem to remember that being one of your biggest criticisms of him during the primary.
November 10, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I never said anything about a "hyper-liberal version" of anything, Jason. Nor did I say "far left" or "far right." So thanks for your careful read, as always.
In every state, voters gave Republicans a swift kick in the ass (not a single Democratic senator lost a seat) and gave Democrats the green light to try to fix the mess the Republicans made over the last 8 years. The election was a resounding repudiation of George W. Bush and Republican ideology in every state. Sorry for you, but Bush is the leader of your party. The country, meanwhile, is ready to be governed however Obama sees fit.
Right now, all I personally care about is that Obama is moving lightning-fast. To me, that's a sign that he's not compromising. I've criticized Obama in the past for compromising, so I'm being optimistic that he's not compromising now, when it really matters. Until I see what he has in mind in January, I can't really fault it.
I also care that the president-elect has a D after his name. I don't care what Republicans think.
November 10, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you are saying is that this is a mandate to jerk the country to the opposite extreme of the Bush years. However you define that is immaterial. The reason Obama gets things done is compromise and your version of the word has always been less conciliatory than Obama has ever shown a penchant for following.
November 10, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say anything of the sort, Jason. Again, I am not talking about a liberal ideology. I'm talking about which party has power. I am simply acknowledging we are a two-party system, not a one-party system (ignoring for the moment Ralph Nader's thoroughly valid argument about how it's all the same no matter who has the power).
But I do honestly hope the Democrats kick the Republicans in the head once or twice before before handing Republicans their invitation to the Compromise Pot Luck Dinner. And I think Rahm will handle the kicking offstage while Obama talks about reaching across the aisle to the rest of us.
Wish I felt sorry for your guys, but I don't. It's smack-down time, and it's going to hurt a little bit.
November 10, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which explains why you were only grudgingly supporting Obama and why I am quite sure he won't be following your advice behind the scenes or in front of them.
November 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at the House - 3/5th - that shows the mandate. The Governors. The Senate. Democratic Presidential candidates don't get the mandate vote the way Republicans do (not that W managed it). But look at the other indicators and you see it.
So as long as Obama doesn't invite bin Laden to the White House barbecue to make small talk with Ayers, I think he can safely follow the mood of the people, which is "Give us some Progressive love."
November 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more you speak mandate the more conservatives hear witch hunt. If you honestly think the 37% of the country who self-identify as liberals is enough to get things done, then I guess you can position your initiatives however you like.
I suspect moderates and conservatives will be necessary as well, which means tone and temperment become the most important tactics to getting things done. Notice that Barack isn't acting like he has a "mandate" for anything.
He is simply moving forward with his agenda independent of such rhetoric.
November 11, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now, all I personally care about is that Obama is moving lightning-fast. To me, that's a sign that he's not compromising.
-------------------------------------------------
Oh I don't know. He's already decided to get involved in the Liebermann controversy and came down on Liebermann's side. What's next, is he going to apologise to him for winning the election and beg him to stay on?
There was FISA which I don't think he had to do to get centrist votes. Now we'll see how Liebermann plays out. Then there's the Waxman Dingle battle and possibly whether Finegold gets Biden's old chairmanship. After that plays out we might have an idea which way obama is moving. It doesn't matter now fast you move if you're moving in the wrong direction.
November 10, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think coming down on Lieberman's side is totally consistent with Obama's I'll-scratch-your-back agenda. While progressives (including me) want Lieberman's head on a platter, Obama would rather figure out a good (political) use for Lieberman, which is something I find a complete waste of time.
I can't abide Obama's position on FISA for a minute. I can't abide his hair-splittings on lots of things (including abortion, gun control, the role of religious institutions in government, capital punishment, trade, health care, terrorism—you name it, oceankat).
Most of all, I can't abide that Obama is a hawk. (Anyone who makes a distinction between "dumb" and "smart" wars is a hawk.) This is what I've always rejected about Obama. Yet I don't think he got a single vote for being a hawk in the end, I don't think he got a single vote for his position on FISA relative to McCain. The notion that FISA would win him "centrist votes" is a media hallucination (thanks, Josh); if someone believes in FISA, they believe in the War on Terror. Obama talks like he buys into the War on Terror (as it has been packaged for us), and so he is just fine with FISA. That sucks.
For me, there is no direction (ideologically) Obama can go that would make me happy unless he reverses course on several key positions. However, I have to defer to the people's choice. And as with Nixon, the people have chosen to reject Bush utterly, so now it's Obama's job to honor the will of the people.
In the interim, if Obama doesn't move on the economy faster than Congress can organize against him, he'll be another one-term Democrat like Jimmy Carter. That's why I'm pleased Obama's moving quickly. Rip the Band-aid off and start treating the infection before the patient dies on the table.
However, I reserve the right to object loudly if Obama gives a plum position to Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham. (Of course, I reserve the right to bitch and moan for any reason whatsoever.) But Lieberman? Feh. I'm really just trying to coast until Obama pisses me off again as bad as he did with FISA.
(Man, I shoulda written a post.)
November 10, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good length, Gasket. Stretching out nicely there. ;-)
November 10, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with many of the points you make. I don't care much about Liebermann either, it'd be just one more little mark. Democrats are always scratching backs but you know, the other guys never scratch back. Who cares if we call it a mandate if he compromises it away?
I expect to be disappointed, I'm sure I'd have been disappointed some of the time with Hillary. I'm just wondering if I'm going to be disappointed all the time. I wonder if he's going to do anything real and hard and big to move us forward. That's always been my worry, that he's too worried about the next election to take any risks.
Fixing the current economic crisis is a priority, it'll be hard and big, but that just gets us back to square one. I don't want to just right the ship. I'm not getting on board until I see that he's going to take one big step forward in at least one area, like energy or health care.
November 10, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of Obama's definition of compromise - namely, setting the agenda and then asking for feedback to develop solutions. I don't expect him to compromise his core ideals or programs, whatever one decides to label his victory. Since Barack doesn't care who gets credit, he will convince his "opponents" that his good ideas are really their own.
November 10, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, sorry to tell you but the Republicans are calling Obama's already watered down non-universal healthcare plan "socialist." Where is there room for compromise? Obama's plan is already center-right. He's already made the Republican argument against mandates. If we use Obama's plan as a starting point of negotiation or compromise with the Republicans, health care reform will be meaningless.
And by the way, how about some compromise with the progressive wing of the party to do health care reform in a comprehensive way to fix a broken health care system? We cannot create the fundamental change that is needed by taking cautious baby steps and coaxing the GOP by watering down proposals. I'm hoping Rahm as Chief of Staff will be a bulldog to rally the Dems to get stuff done, rather than rallying them to compromise with the GOP in the spirit of bipartisanship.
I am not advocation running ramshod over folks liek GWB did with his non-mandates, but there's a difference between acting with comity and genuine dialogue/input vs. compromise which assumes concessions.
November 10, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You only assume compromise means concessions because that has been the democratic creed for these last 40 years. I don't believe that Barack means concession when he says compromise.
I don't think Barack pays attention to the Raging Right anymore than he listens to the Raging Left. His entire career has been building consensus and bringing people together to implement common sense solutions free of ideology. No matter what republicans may say in the media, rest assured that moderates see the writing on the wall and will want to be part of the solution vice an on-going part of the problem.
Rahm has already stated more than once that his role is to pursue Barack's four main priorities in a bi-partisan fashion that respects all views but doesn't compromise the overall mission. He made quite clear on This Week that Barack sets the tone and progress over division is how the administration will approach governing. I don't anticipate Barack continuing the partisan bickering that this comment seems to suggest is the true character of the country.
He ran on a plan that he believes he can get through Congress without compromising its broad goals. The fine details are also negotiable as we seek to get it done. Since Barack doesn't care who gets credit, he can convince moderate republicans that his good ideas were really theirs and get them to act in their own interest by supporting them. He's community organizing the whole country, even those who disagree with him.
It really is a great way to lead us out of the wilderness we've been wandering in these last 40 years.
November 10, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama understands there are dire emergencies to deal with. Any compromising will have to come after those emergencies are addressed, not before. Sorry, but Republicans fucked things up too badly. Democrats are taking the wheel. Call it whatever makes you feel better, but there will be no compromises with the shitheads of either party who intend to stall the process.
November 10, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Position your stance however you prefer, but vinegar and honey come to mind. Tone will mean a great deal if the ultimate goal is to actually deliver on the promise of Barack's candidacy.
November 10, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I'm not making myself clear, I prefer a method of rubbing salt in the wound, and then washing the wound with vinegar to kill the overgrowth of bacteria.
November 10, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
See above.
November 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it before, you catch more flies with shit sandwiches.
November 10, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is true if flies are your goal.
November 11, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
PS: The "republicans" calling his plan socialism are immaterial to getting this thing done. This is a core American issue that will cost many conservative politicians their careers if they come down on the wrong side. I don't anticipate the Extreme Right being much more than a passing oddity within a few election cycles and certainly by the end of Barack's second term.
November 10, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
To repeat what I've posted elsewhere, despite how the pundits and others try to spin it, the whole 2008 election--especially the party nominations-- were a mandate for major change from both Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are now in a position to bring more Republicans over to their side in future elections. If Democrats play their cards right and actually deliver some real change in the many areas where a majority of Democrats and Republicans already agree, they should be in even better shape for the next elections.
The nominations said it all about what a majority of Americans want: Obama, the change candidate, and McCain the maverick won the nominations. Against all odds, Obama beat status quo Hillary and her machine. And maverick McCain beat out the more traditional Republican candidates-- with little help from the Republican leadership until it was clear he was going to win the nomination.
A majority of Americans can agree on quality and reasonable health care that is not rigged against people when they get sick or rigged with above market drug prices. A majority agree we need top notch education to compete in a globalized world. A majority want unnecessary wars ended. A majority want a strong middle class and to end the growing income gap.
That's where I'd start if I were the Democrats.
November 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
80% of the country voted more democratic this year than 4 years ago. Obama won by as wide a margin as Reagan did in 1980. Obama was the first democrat to reach the over 50% threshhold in 44 years. Mandate? HELL TO THE FUCK YEAH.
November 10, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... (searches frantically for "Boomer-to-Gen-X-thesaurus)..
Oh yeah:
WORD!
November 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't do this, but here's the tip to get you down with a gangsta rap name that speaks attitude:
http://www.hiphop-rapture.com/gangsta-rap-name-generator
Now lose the Dave and come back as CruciBadAss X Posse. (Adams. The 3rd.) Peace.
November 10, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero.... Is there ANY chance you tried that machine on your OWN name? I am gonna enjoy this result... forever.
"Desidero we generated a new name for you.
Your new pimped out name is Poop slayer."
POOP SLAYER!!!! I am gonna drop that log on you post after post.
November 10, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me "Masta Rule" and behave accordingly, zit-monkeys!
November 11, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice spin. Except "Jacob Freeze" is Ja Breaker! Which totally leads me to say....
Harharharhar!
Don't ask about quinn esq.... ;-)
November 11, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... apparently my gangsta rap handle is "LL slayer"...
Err... "mad props" Desi; that name generator site is "the shizzle".
Peace Out!
-LL slayer-
November 11, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're rappin'. 'Spect you to throw down any moment.
November 11, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
God help me...
My name is Dave, but you can call me "Slayah".
I used to hit the drums, I was a real playah.
Now I am an old man, all snowy on top,
But the ladies, they all say "That cat can still..."
Sorry, gotta go.
It seems that my lovely wife would like a WORD with me.
November 12, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rhymin' like that she prob'ly wants you to bust a certain groove, if you hear what I'm sayin', give 'er the blizzard, they call him the Yeti, a bomb in a snowman make him boop Betty, hold on steady, feel the beat, brrrr....
November 12, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good god, Desi. I hardly recognize you. This post is so . . . straightforward and so . . . positive.
Pull yourself together, man!
November 10, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink