[clue-talk] it's over!

[Angelo Bertolli]

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2001

I didn't understand what it meant back then, and I still don't 
understand what it means in reference to Obama.  The people elected a 
President.  Is that a mandate that the President gets to do whatever he 
wants for those people while disenfranchising the rest? I hope not.

David Rudder wrote:
> On Nov 5th, 2004, GWBush said:
> "Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, 
> political capital, and now I intend to spend it"
> He didn't use the word "mandate", but a lot of Republicans were.
> A funny quote: James Carville, a Democrat, was quoted as saying "The 
> only person with a mandate is Jim Greevey".  HA!!!!  Mandate?!?!  
> Man-date!!!
>
>
> One big difference is that GWBush won 2004 on "character issues".  
> Obama won on "policy issues".  The voters clearly voted for Obama 
> because of his economic plan, and to a lesser extent his plan for 
> Iraq.  He has a clear mandate on those issues.  GWBush had a clear 
> mandate on abortion, gay marriage, etc., which he failed to address.
>
> Greg Knaddison - GVS wrote:
>> But now both of you who have said basically the same thing, so...
>>
>> Am I looking at the wrong news sources?  As far as I can tell:
>>
>> Obama got 52% of the popular vote while  McCain got 46% of the popular
>> vote. In 2004 Bush got 51% to Kerry's 48%.  We didn't call Bush's win
>> in 2004 a mandate. Are 3 percentage points really that big of a
>> difference?
>>
>> Certainly the popular news media is calling this a mandate, but that's
>> no surprise.  From a critical perspective: is this a mandate?  And
>> which numbers make it clearly so?
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk


-- 
Angelo Bertolli
http://angelo.bitfreedom.com/

~ I'm a sig virus. Please add me to your signature and help me spread! ~