Jump to content

Call for new Direction in Democratic Party

Politics   (1,805 Views 16 Comments)
6 Followers; 99,393 Visitors; 15,990 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 2 of Call for new Direction in Democratic Party. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

And both candidates were well aware of this, and ran their campaigns accordingly. If the goal had been to win the election based upon popular vote, both candidates would have run their campaigns accordingly, and no one can speculate on that outcome.

Ah, yes ... the "I coulda won it if I wanted to" schtick. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't and this whole "I wasn't really trying and besides all those votes were illegal" line is empty posturing. It also ignores the fact that, since neither candidate was focused on winning the popular vote, then Clinton won that majority without really trying either. The whole argument cancels itself out.

According to the law of the land, he won the election by virtue of winning >270 electoral college votes and is the president-elect. But don't try to pretend that he had anything like a landslide or has anything remotely resembling a popular mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are good observations Timothy. (Although Bush II seemed to be a "next in line" vote)

However, this year's election really just can't compare to anything anytime before. Never have two more hated candidates been nominated. Yeah Trump won was because he was the new guy and anti-establishment, but also because he and social media were successful at getting people to hate her as a criminal, liar and murderer. It didn't matter how many lies and outrageous promises he made. The protests after his victory are testimony to his intense dislike.

I agree anyone but her would have been an easy walk to the White House. However, if both parties nominated likable and viable candidates it wouldn't have been so easy for either one.

Best. Election. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, yes ... the "I coulda won it if I wanted to" schtick. Doesn't change the fact that he didn't and this whole "I wasn't really trying and besides all those votes were illegal" line is empty posturing. It also ignores the fact that, since neither candidate was focused on winning the popular vote, then Clinton won that majority without really trying either. The whole argument cancels itself out.

According to the law of the land, he won the election by virtue of winning >270 electoral college votes and is the president-elect. But don't try to pretend that he had anything like a landslide or has anything remotely resembling a popular mandate.

Nobody has ever had a mandate based on the vote, ever. That's not how power works.

A mandate is based on what can be politically accomplished. Whether DJT has a mandate in 2017 will come down to one - and only one - issue: how willing the GOP is to use the nuclear option to push its agenda.

I think likely. Give the treatment of Merrick Garland, I find it highly unlikely that Senate Dems will allow cloture on any nominee to SCOTUS. And any nominee will be characterized as making Robert Bork look tame by comparison. I think the GOP will exercise the nuclear option here, indeed will be forced to do so if they want to place a SCOTUS replacement, and once exercised, Katie bar the door.

The real problem for Democrats is 2018. I think there are only 2 GOP Senators up for reelection in Obama won states and something like 9 Dem senators in DJT won states. Already, WV Sen Manchin is considering changing parties as a defense of his 2018 race.

Its very easy to see a 60 or near 60 seat GOP Senate come Jan, 2019. If so, even Katie couldn't bar that open door.

Put another way, the GOP has a total of 12 Senators from Obama-won States. 7 of them just won reelection. Over the next TWO cycles, 2018 and 2020, only 5 of those seats will be in play. Something on the order of 15 Dem seats in states won by DJT will be in play over the same period. The GOP will likely build its Senate totals over the next TWO cycles. If they don't reach 60 after 2018, it's very likely in 2020. There's your "mandate".

Political winds change fast in this country. But the structural setup for the next TWO cycles do not favor Senate Dems. 2016 was the GOP's Senate weak point and why they were predicted to lose the Senate for much of the year. That weak point doesn't come around again until 2022. 2018 is a strong weak point for Dems in the Senate and 2020 is a neutral to weak disadvantage for Dems.

With the House effectively gerrymandered and the WH locked in for 4 yrs, the Senate will be the arbiter of "mandate" going forward. That Mitch is one powerful guy. Already, he's pulled one SCOTUS pick back from the brink. And kept his majority doing so in an otherwise down cycle. If that's not a mandate, what is?

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet, I've so often seen arguments for this or that measure or policy being justified by a presumed mandate from the people.

We're talking about two different things, here. Political power vs political rhetoric. If the trumpkins don't want to hear about the popular vote, they need to stop trying to frame his election and policies as "the will of the people". It wasn't and they aren't.

Power is how things get done. Rhetoric is how it's all sold to the people paying the bills. S/he who defines the terms wins the debate, which is what leads to power and the money necessary to obtain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×