| Author |
Message |
    
Ken Anderson
Intermediate Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 461
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 02:44 pm: | 
|
What exactly is a "mandate" in regard to an election? The Bush handlers are claiming a mandate, and that "America has spoken," but my understanding of what a mandate is tells me they are full of BS. A Gallup poll yesterday showed 51% of Americans were pleased to have Bush re-elected (or something to that effect). Doesn't sound like a mandate to me. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 03:35 pm: |
|
"Mandate" is one of those coded words. It basically means that you believe you have a right to implement your agenda and that your opponents lack a legitimacy to theirs. It can otherwise be stated, "The people have spoken. We won and you lost, and it's time for you to accept it and shut up about it." |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 03:47 pm: |
|
Duplicate post. Drive through, please.
(Message edited by BillPierce on November 05, 2004) |
Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 04:40 pm: |
|
A MANDATE,
sounds gay to me 
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church
|
Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab
Post Number: 289
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 05:06 pm: |
|
51% is the smallest statistical majority you can possibly get.
The definition is vague when you try to quantify it, but in my mind, 51% is hardly "a mandate".
This rhetoric is just more ungracious-winner Republicrat garbage. Properly put, it is simple gloating. Yeah, Kerry would have done the same thing.
Bush and his cronies need to shut up and get back to their "hard work". I've heard they are going to put Giuliani in charge of Homeland Security. What the hell does he know about securing a nation? He's a freakin' Mayor! Oh, I feel a LOT safer with that mouthpiece in charge... |
Geoff Buschur
Intermediate Member
Username: Avmech
Post Number: 257
Registered: 06-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 05:18 pm: |
|
No, a mandate is a good thing. It's like going hunting with your buds, or getting to have beers with one of your sports heroes. It is when you say to your wife, "No, I can't go grocery shopping with you I have a mandate with Johnny Damon tonight."
Or if you are lucky enough to befriend a hero or celebrity who happens to be of the same sex, you are not gay, but you are mandating. You get all flushed and giggly and excited when they call, but it’s not gay, it’s an honor. Like Tommy Lee or Steven Tyler calling you to see if you wanna hang out, or maybe play some golf.
As a negative term it is when your wife gets together with her friends and you are stuck on a mandate with her friends' husbands. |
Ron Siddall
New Member
Username: Listerdister
Post Number: 21
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 05:33 pm: |
|
50.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 is a statistical majority yet it is smaller than 51% |
Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab
Post Number: 292
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 05:42 pm: |
|
Ron,
Statistically, you're a smartass  . So am I.
Naturally, I was speaking in even percentages, which is the typical way of reporting election results. I have yet to see fractions of a percent in this kind of reporting. But of course it wasn't an even number, and I would imagine the actual final decimal place is way out to the right. However many decimals you want to see, it did not exceed 52%, and my position that this is hardly a "mandate" remains firm. |
Ron Siddall
New Member
Username: Listerdister
Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 06:40 pm: |
|
Joe, yes I was being a smartass. Something I am too good at.
I would agree that 51% is not a mandate. Some could claim it to be daterape though. |
Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley
Post Number: 2441
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 06:55 pm: |
|
It was a mandate for Bush when he lost the popular vote in 2000, why would you think it would be any different in 2004? |
John Rucinski
Junior Member
Username: Ronjohn55
Post Number: 60
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 07:19 pm: |
|
Mandates are political BS. I saw an article about someone in Little Rock, who withdrew from a city council race, didn't campaign, but still won. AND HE WAS CLAIMING HE HAD A MANDATE!!!
I say we get rid of ALL of these professional liars and just start doing things ourselves. |
Brewtun
Junior Member
Username: Brewtun
Post Number: 62
Registered: 02-2001
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 08:44 pm: |
|
With Iowa going to Bush it's more like 52 to 48 percent. |
Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab
Post Number: 293
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 09:40 pm: |
|
Nope,
It would be more like 52% to 45%, since the Libertarian party got 3%. [these numbers are rounded]
Not everyone votes for one or the other. See how ingrained it is? There IS a third party out there, dammit! However, I do not know if the 3% held in Iowa. It is a national average. But Iowa is "typical", and 3% of them should have voted Libertarian, for a total of zero electoral votes.
So, to do the math, 50 states at zero votes each equals... [gets out calculator]... ZERO electoral votes representing several hundred thousand people who voted Libertarian! Yes, the system is definitely fair and I certainly feel like my voice was heard. Not. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 1037
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 09:42 pm: |
|
The margin of victory in the Iowa popular vote (Bush by about 13,000 votes) awards all of Iowa's 7 electoral votes to the President but hardly changes the national popular vote percentage, where Bush received 51.5 percent and Kerry 48.5 percent.
Joseph, in Iowa the Libertarian Party candidate received 2893 votes, 0.19 percent of the total of 1.49 million cast.
(Message edited by BillPierce on November 05, 2004) |
Joseph Listan
Intermediate Member
Username: Poonstab
Post Number: 294
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Dang, Bill! Couldn't we just call it 1 percent? |
Craig Johnson
Intermediate Member
Username: Californiacraig
Post Number: 307
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 06:49 am: |
|
Electoral votes are a funny thing. When you vote you are just voting for electors and most people know this. What most people don't know is that the electors can vote for whomever they want. A good example of this is that Ronald Reagan recieved one electoral vote in 1976 and he wasn't even on the ballot. |
Tim W
Member
Username: Timw
Post Number: 110
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 04:16 pm: |
|
The mandate is not just based upon the presidential election but all the elections, the senate the house and the govenerships. The fact is there were very few victories for the Democrats to be happy about. The President won the election. His party kept both houses, Tom Daschel was tossed out. If this is not a mandate what is. When Clinton won, both times the press declared a mandate even though he lost seats in both houses. |
Wykowski
Senior Member
Username: Bigearl
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 09:46 pm: |
|
Mandate is still gay, And Bush is still a war criminal
You remember that foul evening when you heard the banshees howl
There was lousy drunken bastards singing 'Billy is in the bowl'
They took you up to midnight mass and left you in the lurch
So you dropped a button in the plate and spewed up in the church
|
Ken Anderson
Advanced Member
Username: Ken75
Post Number: 591
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
"The fact is there were very few victories for the Democrats to be happy about. The President won the election. His party kept both houses, Tom Daschel was tossed out. If this is not a mandate what is."
It might not be a mandate. Could it just possibly be gerrymandering? |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 4079
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 06:17 pm: |
|
Are you saying Tom Delay wasn't playing fair when he had TX redistricted???
LIfe begins at 60...1.060, that is.
|
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 07:15 pm: |
|
The Republicans took a calculated gamble when Newt Gingrich engineered the 1994 off-year election strategy that enabled them to gain a Congressional majority that has continued since. This take no prisoners, winning is everything approach has continued under Tom Delay. It greatly polarized, some would say poisoned, the American political landscape. This tactic could backfire when the pendulum swings the other way, as it inevitably will. But at the moment Republican leaders are too busy gloating to worry about what is best for the country as a whole. |
Mike Huss
Intermediate Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 369
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 06:23 pm: |
|
Bill, looking at it from that perspective I must ask, did the Dems think John Kerry was best for the country??? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Absolutely not! Drunken jacka$$ Kennedy only pushed him through because he thought he was the most electable. NEITHER side gives two $hits about what's best for the country, they only do what gives them the best chance at gaining power. Period. |
World Expressions