Election Day and Results

[ThunderHorse]

Well you're correct that Trump won. That's not in dispute. But when people talk about a "mandate" (notice the scare quotes here) vis a vis national elections, it's usually to refer to a succesful re-election bid, or an overwhelming electoral victory. E.g. Reagan had the people's mandate in 1980 and 1984, as Obama did in 2008 and 2012, and GWB did in 2004 (though not in 2000). Both President's inital victories were by overwhelming popular and electoral majorities, which clearly indicated that the will of the people was behind them. That's the meaning of a "mandate". Trump does not have it, even though he won the election.

A president with a clear mandate is free to pursue every objective that was promised during the campaign, as it's clear that electoral momentum is behind them. A president without a mandate needs to be more careful in what objectives they choose to go after.

disagree. A mandate is based on winning control of the Congress and the Executive branch, not by how many individuals voted for the loser.

 

[compforce]

@compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years. Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes. Though I agree the later portion of his first term and second devolved to almost total gridlock. I think political scientists and historians will credit the Obama administration with a great deal of outreach across the aisle - but also fault it for the lack of success. I read somewhere that no party has controlled all 3 branches of government (including the judicial) since the 1920s - but I take your point on executive and legislative.

My larger point was that the pressure to reach across the aisle to legislate has largely dissolved over the last 15 years for a variety of structural reasons - and that's bad for democracy. Both parties have to pursue an electoral strategy towards turning out reliable voters (and suppressing the other party's voters) vs trying to convince 'swing' or 'undecided' voters to move over. It means there's very little room to compromise legislatively because of ideological pressure - even where the policy positions line up pretty well.

I didn't take his efforts during ACA to be outreach. Saying "do what I want, the way that I want it" is not how you reach for compromise. There wasn't a single part of his plan that the Republicans in Congress could get behind ideologically with the possible exception of the requirement to insure people with preexisting conditions. Personally, as much as I abhor the liberal agenda, I think Obama missed a big opportunity by wasting the years he had Congress to push it through. Think about how much of his agenda he could have pushed during that time. He chose to use it all for his "legacy" instead. I think you are going to be absolutely shocked by how much Trump is going to get done in the same time.

Your second paragraph above is what I was talking about in my pendulum analogy. It used to be that a Democrat was someone that was just left of center. With the progressives in the party getting more and more control, the "normal" left is now what used to be considered the radical left. Likewise, the right has moved from being slightly right to a point where they would have been considered radical in the recent past (20-30 years ago). As they move further and further apart, the Presidency and the Congress will enact policies that are further and further apart as we oscillate between the two sides, all while working to cancel the policies put in by the other side. At some point the needle stops moving and we end up with one side or the other. And therein lies the danger. If it stops on the extreme left, we get socialism. On the extreme right we get fascism. Either one is bad. Right now the left is one amnesty/mass citizenship away from permanently controlling the government. We need someone that can pull us back to the middle. We need our own reset button. If we don't get one, this country is over as an idea within the next 50 years. We'll be the USSA instead.

 

[Marauder06]

@compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years. Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes. Though I agree the later portion of his first term and second devolved to almost total gridlock. I think political scientists and historians will credit the Obama administration with a great deal of outreach across the aisle - but also fault it for the lack of success. I read somewhere that no party has controlled all 3 branches of government (including the judicial) since the 1920s - but I take your point on executive and legislative.

My larger point was that the pressure to reach across the aisle to legislate has largely dissolved over the last 15 years for a variety of structural reasons - and that's bad for democracy. Both parties have to pursue an electoral strategy towards turning out reliable voters (and suppressing the other party's voters) vs trying to convince 'swing' or 'undecided' voters to move over. It means there's very little room to compromise legislatively because of ideological pressure - even where the policy positions line up pretty well.

That's why I disagree with @Blizzard as well on the importance of the popular vote. Wherever the final tally lies - and I've read it could be anywhere from .5 - 2 million against the PE - it displays a profound split in the politics of the country. It seems structurally unsound to me to govern in a 'winner take all' manner when half your populace (or at least the ones that bothered to vote) disagree with your positions. That should generate a desire to compromise or move to the middle in at least some areas. But, I think looking at the electoral map with such a powerful demographic divide, rural/city divide, gerrymandered districts, dark money, tailored media, and the loss of earmarks it seems to me the institutional set-up pushes against that kind of governance.

I was reading an article that said what makes democracy strong is not it's efficiency or ability to get the right answer on policy - but it's ability to withstand internal pressure. A democracy has the ability to peacefully transition power at multiple levels and ensures factions do not have to resort to violence to ensure their survival. Its the ability to protect the minority that makes the majority stronger.

Much of the "tumult" over the ACA was the fact that it was hastily crafted, overly complicated, and poorly sold to the American people. Statements from Democratic leaders like "we have to pass the bill before you can find out what is in it" didn't help. The bill was passed... people found out what was in it... and then the tumult REALLY started.

Your explanation of the necessity of appealing to extremities is excellent. I think that's exactly the problem. I wonder if we would disagree about the causes? I hypothesize that an increased appeal to identity politics resulted in more, increasingly-polarized factions, and the competition for political coalition building is now such that even small groups have a greatly outsized voice in elections and policy decisions. There's a rush to pander to these groups, in part to gain their votes but also to avoid being attacked by them, accused of some kind of "-ism" or being some kind of "-ist." These smaller, ever-more-vocal and demanding groups are willing to engage in social, political, and physical violence at the drop of a hat... because that's what their leaders encourage them to do. Because that kind of thing works.

I may have read the same piece about democracy you did. If so, I think it also said that democracies have to be able to balance their internal contradictions. I think the outcome of the recent election is a much-needed rebalancing. The trick is going to be not swinging so far to the right that it spurs another far-left correction in 2-4 years.

 

[AWP]

People complain about the injustice of the Electoral College yet it has existed since Day One of our nation. There's some "rabble, rabble" when a popular candidate loses the vote, but what's done, what changes?

Not a damn thing. No has even made a serious run at the concept in how many years? "Voter, please..."

 

[Blizzard]

@compforce I think that's a misrepresentation of the Obama presidency - especially during the first 3 years. Much of the tumult over the ACA was due to President Obama's efforts to include Republican votes.

Strong non-concur here. There was virtually no effort to include outside viewpoints/discussion in ACA. Opposing views were dismissed and it was never overwhelmingly popular. Democrats feared their window for slamming something through was closing (one thing they actually got right, as evidenced by their massive defeat in 2010 elections). So, the legislation was ramrodded down our throats in a half assed effort. Most never even read the bill and it was unanimously opposed by Republicans, in part for that reason (Reid allowed no discussion on it and Democrats had the numbers to push it). That's one reason it was slapped with the Obamacare title and was so unpopular/controversial from the start.

That's why I disagree with @Blizzard as well on the importance of the popular vote. Wherever the final tally lies - and I've read it could be anywhere from .5 - 2 million against the PE - it displays a profound split in the politics of the country. It seems structurally unsound to me to govern in a 'winner take all' manner when half your populace (or at least the ones that bothered to vote) disagree with your positions. That should generate a desire to compromise or move to the middle in at least some areas. But, I think looking at the electoral map with such a powerful demographic divide, rural/city divide, gerrymandered districts, dark money, tailored media, and the loss of earmarks it seems to me the institutional set-up pushes against that kind of governance.

It actually sounds like you agree with me here more than you disagree. My point was exactly that. To govern with a winner take all philosophy and arrogance is very misplaced. Note: Obama has done this IMO. On more than one occasion, particularly after 2012 elections he took an "I won" approach to leading (President Obama to Republicans: I won. Deal with it.). See comments above in re: Obamacare as further evidence to this.

 

[Blizzard]

I may have read the same piece about democracy you did. If so, I think it also said that democracies have to be able to balance their internal contradictions. I think the outcome of the recent election is a much-needed rebalancing. The trick is going to be not swinging so far to the right that it spurs another far-left correction in 2-4 years.

And this is also where it's important that government not be overly efficient with "change" (not to be confused with efficiency in the delivery of it's services). We don't want and shouldn't have wild swings in policy to the left or right on a regular basis.

 

[ThunderHorse]

When it comes to the ACA I don't ever remember the POTUS handing Pelosi and Reid a plan and thus saying: get this done. It was: hey, healthcare, get it passed.

 

[Il Duce]

Much of the "tumult" over the ACA was the fact that it was hastily crafted, overly complicated, and poorly sold to the American people. Statements from Democratic leaders like "we have to pass the bill before you can find out what is in it" didn't help. The bill was passed... people found out what was in it... and then the tumult REALLY started.

Your explanation of the necessity of appealing to extremities is excellent. I think that's exactly the problem. I wonder if we would disagree about the causes? I hypothesize that an increased appeal to identity politics resulted in more, increasingly-polarized factions, and the competition for political coalition building is now such that even small groups have a greatly outsized voice in elections and policy decisions. There's a rush to pander to these groups, in part to gain their votes but also to avoid being attacked by them, accused of some kind of "-ism" or being some kind of "-ist." These smaller, ever-more-vocal and demanding groups are willing to engage in social, political, and physical violence at the drop of a hat... because that's what their leaders encourage them to do. Because that kind of thing works.

I may have read the same piece about democracy you did. If so, I think it also said that democracies have to be able to balance their internal contradictions. I think the outcome of the recent election is a much-needed rebalancing. The trick is going to be not swinging so far to the right that it spurs another far-left correction in 2-4 years.

I hear you, I would likely quibble about the Presidents outreach and causes of the appeal to extremes - but, I don't think they're necessarily mutually exclusive. I think you can have both - or more accurately a multitude - of competing strains of causation. There's a great article in the opinion section of the NYT today (I linked it on FB yesterday) arguing against the liberal reliance on identity politics from a liberal perspective - think you might find it interesting.

I'm not sure I agree this most previous election was a re-balancing. However, I am firmly on the liberal side so it's very difficult for me to see the executive in this election-cycle as anything but unprecedented and dangerous. It may be that bias precludes me from seeing the necessity of conservative and populist policies over the next 2-4 years to counterbalance the last 8.

 

[Marauder06]

Good points. For all his talk of "transparency" and "reaching across the aisle," I didn't see President Obama as being particularly interested in negotiating with the Republicans. Other than the "Beer Summit," I don't recall any particular outreach efforts. In fact, I remember the opposite, with quotes like "elections have consequences" and "I won" and believing he had a mandate from the people that equated to forcing the other side to bend to his will.

Too Bad Obama Didn't Follow His Own Advice | RealClearPolitics

I read the article you mentioned, it was a good piece but liberals aren't going to change. There is genuine power in playing the victim in US society. From business to college campuses to even the military, there are intrinsic and explicit rewards for "otherness." The main thing that has changed is now the mainstream right has become tribalized as well.

 

[Gunz]

Hillary won the popular vote Hillary won the popular vote Hillary won the popular vote...

Shut the fuck up. :wall:

 

[Gunz]

People complain about the injustice of the Electoral College yet it has existed since Day One of our nation. There's some "rabble, rabble" when a popular candidate loses the vote, but what's done, what changes?

Not a damn thing. No has even made a serious run at the concept in how many years? "Voter, please..."

I wonder if there will now be an effort to do away with it? I mean by people who for some reason can't comprehend that it's a double-edged sword.

 

[racing_kitty]

There's an article on the Daily Kos talking about how the EC is very much in play. Should the unlikely happen, and EC day swing to HRC, the very ones screaming about how the EC is an unconstitutional scam will suddenly develop amnesia, and fight to protect it.

Until they lose again.

 

[Salt USMC]

Petitions to end the electoral college happen in every single election. Literally every one. They just gain more attention during contested elections, such as 2000 and this one. It's really dumb.

 

[Il Duce]

Good points. For all his talk of "transparency" and "reaching across the aisle," I didn't see President Obama as being particularly interested in negotiating with the Republicans. Other than the "Beer Summit," I don't recall any particular outreach efforts. In fact, I remember the opposite, with quotes like "elections have consequences" and "I won" and believing he had a mandate from the people that equated to forcing the other side to bend to his will.

Too Bad Obama Didn't Follow His Own Advice | RealClearPolitics

I read the article you mentioned, it was a good piece but liberals aren't going to change. There is genuine power in playing the victim in US society. From business to college campuses to even the military, there are intrinsic and explicit rewards for "otherness." The main thing that has changed is now the mainstream right has become tribalized as well.

Yeah, I think it will be interesting to see how the current administration is viewed in history - especially with the major policy reversals that are likely over the next 2-4 years.

It's interesting to read your comments on 'playing the victim.' I know how you mean them but I immediately think of the 'victimhood' conceit by conservatives. I wonder if that essentially proves your point - looking at yourself as a victim, as always under-siege, as someone who's rights are always just about to be infringed upon (or already infringed upon), is a powerful and necessary part of engendering political loyalty.

I think there's hope for liberal politics and ideas about identity - but I'm speaking as a part of the tribe so will admit to a great deal of skepticism. I think this election cycle, and probably the 2018 midterms, will be sobering enough defeats to democrats and liberals to re-look some aspects of our politics. I think there's not a huge amount of room to maneuver on major issues without losing more of the electorate than the party can avoid - so some serious re-thinking of messaging ideology might be in line. I think it's one of the few times the DNC party leadership and party platform has the opportunity to actually influence changes. However, if you're looking at the historical record of both national committees actually doing that you've got to go back more than 25 years so maybe my optimism is misplaced.

 

[0699]

And this is also where it's important that government not be overly efficient with "change" (not to be confused with efficiency in the delivery of it's services). We don't want and shouldn't have wild swings in policy to the left or right on a regular basis.

Three constitutional amendments would fix this.

1) Raise the percentage of "yea" votes required to pass a new law. Make it 80% approval or even 90%. This will FORCE the politicians to work together, left or right, but it will also minimize the size of the law books.

2) Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment so that the state governments have some level of "say" in the creation and enforcement of federal laws.

3) Repeal, in one year, all federal laws that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and REQUIRE Congress to decide individually (under the new higher percentage requirement) which will be kept; i.e. no blanket "we will keep all federal laws currently on the books"-type legislation. This will force the federal government to reset our laws and only pass those that are important.

A non-amendment change would also improve things; establish the length of each session of Congress at four months, pay all Congressmen 1/3 of their current salary, and shut down the Capitol building during the eight months they are out of session. Our Fore Fathers never envisioned Congressmen as sitting at the SOG full-time, arguing about BS and hooded sweatshirts. They should roll in, pass or not-pass laws as required, then they can go back to their district and work at being a businessman, lawyer, etc. This full-time Congress stuff is BS.

 

[Marine0311]

Three constitutional amendments would fix this.

1) Raise the percentage of "yea" votes required to pass a new law. Make it 80% approval or even 90%. This will FORCE the politicians to work together, left or right, but it will also minimize the size of the law books.

2) Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment so that the state governments have some level of "say" in the creation and enforcement of federal laws.

3) Repeal, in one year, all federal laws that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and REQUIRE Congress to decide individually (under the new higher percentage requirement) which will be kept; i.e. no blanket "we will keep all federal laws currently on the books"-type legislation. This will force the federal government to reset our laws and only pass those that are important.

A non-amendment change would also improve things; establish the length of each session of Congress at four months, pay all Congressmen 1/3 of their current salary, and shut down the Capitol building during the eight months they are out of session. Our Fore Fathers never envisioned Congressmen as sitting at the SOG full-time, arguing about BS and hooded sweatshirts. They should roll in, pass or not-pass laws as required, then they can go back to their district and work at being a businessman, lawyer, etc. This full-time Congress stuff is BS.

I could agree to all of this and the best point is the Fore Fathers sitting in the SOG full time.

 

[TLDR20]

.

A non-amendment change would also improve things; establish the length of each session of Congress at four months, pay all Congressmen 1/3 of their current salary, and shut down the Capitol building during the eight months they are out of session. Our Fore Fathers never envisioned Congressmen as sitting at the SOG full-time, arguing about BS and hooded sweatshirts. They should roll in, pass or not-pass laws as required, then they can go back to their district and work at being a businessman, lawyer, etc. This full-time Congress stuff is BS.

I think that is an interesting idea.

Don't you think they would just supplement their income from special interests?

 

[compforce]

As much as I like your ideas, they will never happen because...politics

Three constitutional amendments would fix this.

1) Raise the percentage of "yea" votes required to pass a new law. Make it 80% approval or even 90%. This will FORCE the politicians to work together, left or right, but it will also minimize the size of the law books.

Nothing will every pass if you did that. Not one thing. I've sat at the table in corporate environments where everyone has just one goal...make money... and there still was never 80% concensus.

2) Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment so that the state governments have some level of "say" in the creation and enforcement of federal laws.

How about we just go back to the Government being responsible for national defense and acting as arbitrator when states disagree? Or represent the states' interests on the global stage? When did it become the federals governments job to provide welfare, social security, oversight to make sure we don't hurt ourselves, etc?

3) Repeal, in one year, all federal laws that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and REQUIRE Congress to decide individually (under the new higher percentage requirement) which will be kept; i.e. no blanket "we will keep all federal laws currently on the books"-type legislation. This will force the federal government to reset our laws and only pass those that are important.

Absolutely not. The government would be even slower than it is now to react to changes in the world. This one I vehemently disagree with.

A non-amendment change would also improve things; establish the length of each session of Congress at four months, pay all Congressmen 1/3 of their current salary, and shut down the Capitol building during the eight months they are out of session. Our Fore Fathers never envisioned Congressmen as sitting at the SOG full-time, arguing about BS and hooded sweatshirts. They should roll in, pass or not-pass laws as required, then they can go back to their district and work at being a businessman, lawyer, etc. This full-time Congress stuff is BS.

[/quote]

Term limits and reduced pay will never happen because Congress has to vote it in.

 

[AWP]

Petitions to end the electoral college happen in every single election. Literally every one. They just gain more attention during contested elections, such as 2000 and this one. It's really dumb.

Those aren't serious challenges. I'm talking about a proposed bill that gathers steam in Congress.

 

[Gunz]

Very funny...but scathingly spot-on commentary by Jonah Goldberg in The National Review. (It even includes links to YouTube videos, like Bill Clinton's infamous laughing-then-crying scene at Ron Brown's funeral.)



Among Hillary’s greatest problems wasn’t that she was a liar, but that she was so bad at it. When Bill lied, it was like watching a jazz impresario scat. You could pull him off an intern, slap him in the face with a half-frozen flounder, and he could, without missing a beat, plausibly explain that he was just a gentleman trying to help push the young lady over a fence. But when Hillary lied, which was often, it was like watching a member of the Politburo explain to a hungry mob of peasants that food-production targets exceeded expectations. Hillary never seemed to fully grasp that Bill’s lying skills did not become community property when they got married along with his collection of back issues of Juggs and that shoe box full of used pregnancy tests. There was music to Bill’s lying while Hillary deceived the way Helen Keller played the piano.

The Fall of House Clinton