danivon wrote:How many states does the preclearance part of the VRA apply to? I thought it was just the ones with Civil Rights problems from the 60s. Bartlett v Strickland (2009, USSC) limited the requirements to favour minority candidates and I think other Supreme Court decisions have struck down 'minority majority' districts, although I don't disagree that it is a factor (although there are ways to draw districts that are less biased and will still give decent representation).

But there are other reasons for the gerrymandering, and both parties do it. Some states use an independent commission to draw up the boundaries, but most basically decide through the legislature, and a lot of it is done simply to benefit incumbents (because unless one party has a lock on the legislature and the governor's mansion, they need to come to a mutually beneficial deal with the other).

Still, if Obama had won with fewer votes than Romney, we'd all be getting told that he had no real popular mandate.

On the VRA, you are right that it is a factor, but not the only factor. Instead of "much" I should use the word "some". I also agree with you that gerrymandering is something that both parties do. I live in a gerrymandered district. It's part of the reason that there are no Republican congressmen from Massachusetts even though parts of the state are conservative.

I think that Obama has a national mandate as it relates to taxes. But he still has to work with a Republican congress whose individual members have a different mandate. It really will come down to leadership as I've mentioned probably too many times.

Axelrod was talking about all Presidents, not just this one. Inference based on a selective hearing of someone else's words is not usually something I'd ascribe to you, RJ.

This is what he said on yesterday's Morning Joe:

Everyone's goint to have to come to the table in the spirit of getting things done but on this issue of particularly the fiscal cliff - presidents always say, 'I have a mandate'; that's a foolish word and generally untrue

He also said:

But the president did campaign all over this country ... on the need for a balanced deficit reduction that included some new revenues and he was reelected in a significant way, so hopefully people will read those results and read them as a vote for cooperation

.

I would say that the President has a mandate to govern because he won the election (as well as the popular vote). That is not the same thing as saying every policy he comes up with has a mandate, or even that policies he had before the election have mandates.

In other words, it's not an absolute mandate, but there clearly is support for Obama and more than for the alternative that was put forward.

So I think my position is closer to Axelrod's than you think it is. Not sure what ricky's is.

Still, when it comes to comparing which parts of the Executive/Legislature have stronger mandates relative to each other, and relative to before Nov 6, I'd rank them using trend, result and popular vote as:

1 Senate Republicans (more returned than before, majority in chamber, popular vote)
2 Obama (less in the EC, but still a majority, popular vote)
=3 House Democrats (more support than before, minority returned, popular vote)
=3 House Republicans (less support but a majority returned, lost popular vote)
5 Senate Republicans (less support, minority returned, lost popular vote)

But as the margins for voting are tight, and as the Senate and House majorities are only around the 54-46 mark, the gap between 1 and 5 on that list is not very big.

danivon wrote:Axelrod was talking about all Presidents, not just this one. Inference based on a selective hearing of someone else's words is not usually something I'd ascribe to you, RJ.

This is what he said on yesterday's Morning Joe:

Everyone's goint to have to come to the table in the spirit of getting things done but on this issue of particularly the fiscal cliff - presidents always say, 'I have a mandate'; that's a foolish word and generally untrue

He also said:

But the president did campaign all over this country ... on the need for a balanced deficit reduction that included some new revenues and he was reelected in a significant way, so hopefully people will read those results and read them as a vote for cooperation

.

I would say that the President has a mandate to govern because he won the election (as well as the popular vote). That is not the same thing as saying every policy he comes up with has a mandate, or even that policies he had before the election have mandates.

In other words, it's not an absolute mandate, but there clearly is support for Obama and more than for the alternative that was put forward.

So I think my position is closer to Axelrod's than you think it is. Not sure what ricky's is.

Still, when it comes to comparing which parts of the Executive/Legislature have stronger mandates relative to each other, and relative to before Nov 6, I'd rank them using trend, result and popular vote as:

1 Senate Republicans (more returned than before, majority in chamber, popular vote)
2 Obama (less in the EC, but still a majority, popular vote)
=3 House Democrats (more support than before, minority returned, popular vote)
=3 House Republicans (less support but a majority returned, lost popular vote)
5 Senate Republicans (less support, minority returned, lost popular vote)

But as the margins for voting are tight, and as the Senate and House majorities are only around the 54-46 mark, the gap between 1 and 5 on that list is not very big.

Huh? I said that Obama has a mandate. However, my point is that individual House members have to answer to their constituents if they want to get reelected. They don't take their instructions from the entire electorate, which is how our system is designed. It doesn't matter whether they have a national mandate; it matters what their district mandate is. These guys pretty much always want to get reelected. So, the President has to lead. And you lead by understanding the constraints of the people whose support you need. He needs the support of Boehner, who needs the support of individual Reps. If the President refuses to take that into account, he will not succeed.

What are the Republicans in the house to do then? I see three options.

1. Do the same thing they have done for 2 years ("obstruct")
2. Vote with the Democratic plans ("Rubberstamp")
3. Abstain and broadcast that the people have spoken in the election, leaving the Dems with the responsibility of the economy through their policies.

I have contacted my representative and recommended #3

I think that individually many of them commit political suicide if they allow tax increases (by abstaining). Hence the conundrum.

Ray Jay wrote:I think that individually many of them commit political suicide if they allow tax increases (by abstaining). Hence the conundrum.

True.

So, I predict path#4: Some GOP moderates (those in purple districts) vote for a modified increase in taxes--something above $250K--while getting to tout some phony budget cuts.

After this, I would not be surprised if there is a challenge to Boehner's leadership from the Tea Party.

That would be a challenge that I would advocate.

There is a fourth option, but I suspect the appetite is not there:

4. Engage and compromise, thus allowing some things they don't want, but acting in time to stop the worst of the changes due in a few weeks.

I agree with RJ, abstention would not look good. It means not stopping the worst, not backing the best, not being seen to engage in debate, and not exerting influence on behalf of their electors.

Individual members of Congress do have a mandate. But do the caucuses as a whole, (and by extension, their leadership)?

(wow, cross-posted with DF and bbauska)

That may well happen. It's more likely than a Boehner-led deal, and even that would be strongly opposed by many caucus members.

I'm testing a new motto for the U.S.

Which sounds better:

e pluribus pluribus

or

e pluribus duo

danivon wrote:Individual members of Congress do have a mandate. But do the caucuses as a whole, (and by extension, their leadership)?

If the Republicans rolled over for Obama, they would have no reason to exist. That's the folly in this "mandate" talk. How do they go to their constituents in 2014 and ask to be reelected after giving Obama what he wants?

The "tide" of this election was pro-Obama, yet the GOP maintained the House. It is very rare for the President's party to gain in his third Congressional election. So, why would the GOP fear defying Obama?

And again, who gets the blame if the country plunges into recession? Some say it will be Congress.

Interesting, but what is Obama doing? Besides going overseas?

Obama is speaking ... laying out the same position ... sometimes when each side follows the logic of their own position, it's not a good answer for anyone.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Individual members of Congress do have a mandate. But do the caucuses as a whole, (and by extension, their leadership)?

If the Republicans rolled over for Obama, they would have no reason to exist. That's the folly in this "mandate" talk. How do they go to their constituents in 2014 and ask to be reelected after giving Obama what he wants?

This is a big problem with the binary thinking that seems to prevail in the US nowadays. It's always either all-or-nothing.

A compromise would mean that Obama gets some of what he wants, and not all of it, but that the opposition get some of what they want and not all of that.

They go could back to their constituents and say, "I argued for X and Y and Z. We got X, made progress on Y, and the awful Democrats forced us to concede on Z. Send me back and I'll fight harder, because with a Democrat in my place, they'll roll back on X and Y, and then what's worse, do V and W. With me, we'll push to get all of Y, we'll get Z, and then we'll move on to argue for A and B!"

I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of most able politicians to say stuff that helps address the issues. It's not like it's not common practice to over promise and under deliver. Especially as if they do it now, there's 2 years for them to deal with any political backlash.

The "tide" of this election was pro-Obama, yet the GOP maintained the House. It is very rare for the President's party to gain in his third Congressional election. So, why would the GOP fear defying Obama?

1) If nothing happens, the tax cuts are cancelled anyway. After that happens, the debate on tax will then presumably be which cuts to restore, but the default position, the status quo, will have changed to one that the GOP don't want and stood against. So, if they don't want the ground to change under them, they could do worse than allow a compromise that's closer to what they want, making it easier to cut taxes in the future.

2) He's got nothing to lose as an individual. He doesn't need to worry (apart from as a 'legacy' point of view) about what his party thinks of him by 2016, let alone what the other side think, or the voters. There's two ways to think of where he is now - he's part lame duck, part free bird.

3) Even if the GOP gain in the 14 Congressional elections, what can they do with it - especially if they don't take the Senate? (I know that they may feel they can take the 6 seats they'd need, but it's by no means a banker). It will be two years hence. If you are right, the economy will be in the tank, and the deficit will be worse than ever. At some point, someone's got to ask what's best for the USA, not what's best for their party.

And again, who gets the blame if the country plunges into recession? Some say it will be Congress.

I think the whole political class will get some blame attached to them. I think if the Republicans handle it badly, if they appear to intransigent or get too bombastic, that will make it easier for the Democrats to fling mud at them.

Especially if there's a whiff of the Republicans taking a stance in the hope that it leads to a new recession that they can then benefit politically from.

Interesting, but what is Obama doing? Besides going overseas?

He's not going to Asia until next Saturday, and he's due back on Tuesday 20th. I don't think it's something he can be knocked for, as it's about building relations with a region that we don't really want to be left for China to exploit. Leaders from China, Russia and Japan will also be there, to talk to the ASEAN nations. At the moment, it's one of the areas of the world where the US could benefit from promoting investment and trade, as well as encouraging moves toward democracy. If having the head of state there helps, I think that would be good for you, as well as for the ASEAN nations.

Anyway, As RJ says, he was speaking today. As well as laying out a position similar to that of before - that says he's open to compromise, but does still insist on some tax rises for the rich - he is inviting all four leaders in Congress to a White House meeting.

I would expect that all would want that to happen early next week, well before the Asian trip. If so, that meeting, and what follows it, will be very important.

The reason I want an abstention is to prove, once and for all, whether the stimuluses and taxation plan the Dems want will work. That is why the Rs should stand aside.

If it works, and the economy flourishes... Great!
If it tanks... Well, we will have learned a lesson.

That is the issue that needs to be broadcasted. Obama painted the House as obstructionists, and won with it. Let's not let the Dems have that issue next time.

Someone will have to answer for the economy. Apparently it was Bush (according to the election).

Danivon:

I think the whole political class will get some blame attached to them. I think if the Republicans handle it badly, if they appear to intransigent or get too bombastic, that will make it easier for the Democrats to fling mud at them.

I largely agree with Danivon's entire post. Building on that, if you look at the quote above, one of our challenges is that Repubs and Dems interpret the world differently now because they have their own media. The Dems have MSNBC, NPR, and most of the MSM. The Repubs have Fox and the WSJ and talk radio. Each side will be portrayed negatively by the other side's media, So, for Repubs Obama previously saying something like "elections have consequences and I won" still resonates on Fox. Meanwhile, Mitch McConell (sp?) saying smething like "my primary objective is to make Obama a one term President" still resonates on the left.

Therefore, even if each sides follows their own interest / view / mandate, their constituency may not view them negatively, or at least their constitutency will view the other side as worse. It's a bit like the prisoner's dilemma, except we all are the prisoners.