What do we expect now?

[JB3]

That's an easy fix. Next time, $12 billion.

Let's hope not.

[bankside]

Does the word "mandate" mean something different in american, like "to table a bill" or "liberal" or "poll tax" all mean different things to folks from the US.

He is there. He won most of the electricians in the electrical college. He has a mandate.

[TX-Beau]

Mandate is kinda fuzzy, but it basically means super-majority, that authorizes a president to pursue a more partisan agenda.

[JB3]

Does the word "mandate" mean something different in american, like "to table a bill" or "liberal" or "poll tax" all mean different things to folks from the US.

He is there. He won most of the electricians in the electrical college. He has a mandate.

No. That's not what it means.

Obama had a mandate his first term because he clobbered McCain in both the popular and Electoral votes, AND the democrats clobbered the Republicans in congress. In this election, Obama's election was a fair bit narrower, and dissatisfaction with his policies was still very high.

If he had won resoundingly in the popular vote, as he did the first time, he would have a mandate. But he didn't.

[TX-Beau]

See this is where the fuzzy comes in because mandate implies more than just a big victory, it implies that the president in question was elected to DO something.

People will argue with the above for a variety of reasons, there is no specific definition and whether or not a President has a mandate will depend on how many people believe he has one.

It's kind of a consensus thing.

[JB3]

If Obama has a mandate now, it is to attempt more bipartisanship (a mandate the republicans also received), and focus more effort on jobs and the US' economic situation.

Also, it would be hard for Obama (or Romney for that matter) to be elected on a mandate to do anything, since neither gave us any specifics about what they wanted to do. The only overriding theme for both was Jobs, but any mandate would end there.

[TX-Beau]

I don't think he does have a mandate, and if he does, I'd contend that it would be not to follow the right off the crazy cliff.

Scratch that, he has a negative mandate, a mandate not to be a whirling wing-nut asshat trying to drag us all back into the 1400's.

[GiancarloC]

He does not have a mandate. Bush never had one either. The only president that's had a mandate since 2000 was Obama in his first term. IF he truly had a mandate, he would have received more support than he did, and the democrats would have closed the gap significantly in the house.

I won't take this seriously. It's simply not true. He does have a mandate. The way the house was gerrymandered prevented that...

One can rely on semantics all they want and declare he doesn't. But he won a big enough margin for it to be considered a mandate. It's ironic one joins in after the election to make comments about what they think of the President's CLEAR MANDATE. The republican party is totally demoralized.

[JB3]

I won't take this seriously. It's simply not true. He does have a mandate. The way the house was gerrymandered prevented that...

One can rely on semantics all they want and declare he doesn't. But he won a big enough margin for it to be considered a mandate. It's ironic one joins in after the election to make comments about what they think of the President's CLEAR MANDATE. The republican party is totally demoralized.

A clear mandate was what he won by in 2008 AND the issues that he pledged to work on his first term. He does not have a mandate for his last term. I do agree with TX, though, that if he did have one, it would be to not get pushed around by republicans in congress on debt issues.

[GiancarloC]

That's based on pure semantics. I don't agree. The electoral college matters and he won clearly there. The republicans are demoralized. Simple as that. He has a clear opportunity to punish them regardless of their margin in the House.

[Jack Springer]

Republicans are not demoralized.

It will take a while to recoup. But they will be back -- just like the dem's came back from 2010.

[rareboy]

Does the word "mandate" mean something different in american, like "to table a bill" or "liberal" or "poll tax" all mean different things to folks from the US.

He is there. He won most of the electricians in the electrical college. He has a mandate.

I'm old enough to think of this when I listen to arguments over Mandate.

[EastMed]

^ I used to read 'Latin Inches', more my type1

Mr Obama has a mandate, and I agree with Paul Krugman that he should not be blackmailed by them.

So President Obama has to make a decision, almost immediately, about how to deal with continuing Republican obstruction. How far should he go in accommodating the G.O.P.’s demands?

My answer is, not far at all. Mr. Obama should ... hold his ground even at the cost of letting his opponents inflict damage on a still-shaky economy. And this is definitely no time to negotiate a “grand bargain” on the budget that snatches defeat from the jaws of victory. ...

Why? Because Republicans are trying, for the third time since he took office, to use economic blackmail to achieve a goal they lack the votes to achieve through the normal legislative process. In particular, they want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy... So they are, in effect, threatening to tank the economy unless their demands are met. ...

http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...ke-a-deal.html

[bankside]

See this is where the fuzzy comes in because mandate implies more than just a big victory, it implies that the president in question was elected to DO something.

People will argue with the above for a variety of reasons, there is no specific definition and whether or not a President has a mandate will depend on how many people believe he has one.

It's kind of a consensus thing.

No. That's not what it means.

Obama had a mandate his first term because he clobbered McCain in both the popular and Electoral votes, AND the democrats clobbered the Republicans in congress. In this election, Obama's election was a fair bit narrower, and dissatisfaction with his policies was still very high.

If he had won resoundingly in the popular vote, as he did the first time, he would have a mandate. But he didn't.

The trouble is, you didn't elect him to exercise some of the powers of the presidency. He's there for four years to do what he thinks right for the country, not to do what the Republicans would be comfortable with. By definition the job is about doing something. I don't think the concept of a mandate, as you put it, has got a mandate.

I'm old enough to think of this when I listen to arguments over Mandate.

Rareboy! You broke out the scanner for us to trip down memory lane!

^ I used to read 'Latin Inches', more my type1

I remember buying Mandate/Inches/Latin Inches, a French one called Tétu. All good. All 20 years ago when I was a new gay.

[GiancarloC]

Republicans are not demoralized.

It will take a while to recoup. But they will be back -- just like the dem's came back from 2010.

They are definitely demoralized and they are losing grasp with reality too... instead of coming out and being reasonable, most of them are making excuses and not adjusting to the changing political atmosphere in this country.

People like to say politics happen in cycles... I say not really. There was a paradigm shift four days ago and the republican party will be left in the dust.

[BostonPirate]

It's going to take a bit of time to see if the Republicans decide to either change their world view to erode the Democratic Party's dominance in cultural diversity, or they are going to double down and seek an aparthied Gov't.

The reality is that either they accept what this election means, or they will continue to lose relevance. The new young voter is turning out to be far more reliable than pollsters believed. They and the Women, specifically the Latino women, are going to be the big swing voting block in the coming years. The engaged youth vote is computer savvy and communicates in a way that overrides special interest money.

No matter how you cut it, the GOP has some house cleaning to do.

1. It has to sever itself from Grover Norquist.
2. It has to stop engaging in morality legislation,... rape abortion
3. It has to stop fighting science.
4. It has to separate church and state.
5. It has to offer Attractive business legislation to small business in America.

One in six Latina's own their own business in America, and are conservative catholics. That they are out of the tent of the GOP because of papers please legislation, self deportation... blah blah.... That they are not part of the voting GOP block is incredible, and has everything to do with main street versus wall street, and legislation that affects their right to decide what to do with their own bodies.

Latina's are overwhelmingly anti abortion, yet pro choice. This nuanced change in the GOP position would make them more competitive.

There are ways for the GOP to ease into this, but either they do, or a new party will wind up being created to replace them. My intinct is that the GOP will survive, but to do so, it will have to shed the obstruction.

I guess I think that its about sixty percent possible that they can pull out of this and redirect.

I don't see how gay people will ever fit into their coalition, though. They have too much to lose if they disenfranchise the religious right.

[rareboy]

There's no question that if the GOp doesn't play to the religious right, the latter will form a 'party of God' or some suck nonsense as they try to drag America to Armageddon. Which would be a good thing. The US needs to marginalize the extreme right and the extreme left, but give them enough room to have a voice so that they hopefully don't just start blowing shit up.

[bankside]

The US needs to marginalize the extreme right and the extreme left, but give them enough room to have a voice so that they hopefully don't just start blowing shit up.

Which worked incredibly well in Canada before the downfall of the Liberal party. Centrist level heads need to dominate, with the left and right fringes shunted off to their own respective parties.

[Kulindahr]

A mandate is when enough of the people support the president that if a member of Congress is opposing the president's program, the words "The White House is calling" should cause a cold sweat.

[JB3]

A mandate is when enough of the people support the president that if a member of Congress is opposing the president's program, the words "The White House is calling" should cause a cold sweat.

Which I doubt to be the case after this election.

[GiancarloC]

Which I doubt to be the case after this election.

How so? The republicans are a mess right now. Some in the House are already saying they'll work with the President.

[JB3]

How so? The republicans are a mess right now. Some in the House are already saying they'll work with the President.

Because this election was much closer than the last, and dissatisfaction with the direction of the country was 55%. They have no reason to fear the president.

[star-warrior]

Because this election was much closer than the last, and dissatisfaction with the direction of the country was 55%. They have no reason to fear the president.

Midterms...?

[GiancarloC]

Because this election was much closer than the last, and dissatisfaction with the direction of the country was 55%. They have no reason to fear the president.

What?

The dissatisfaction is big time with the Congress... the Congress have very low approval ratings... not the President. Of course they have every reason to fear him. They just lost a big election...

Oh and the President actually has a pretty high approval rating. Nice try though.

[BostonPirate]

Lets not forget the historic nature of Obama's second term. Only one Democratic President Since FRD has won two majority elections, Obama. To fully understand the impact of that we see the cycle of elections, in which 20 dems and 10 repubs ( aprox) were up against elections, and somehow the Democrats still made gains on the seats. That means that in two years, they will probably be fighting more on their own turf. IF the GOP does not change it's anti woman, anti imigrant stance, they will lose more. The filibuster is going to be changed in the new senate, and obstruction there will end.

The GOP losses in the house were clear indications that at a local level, Loonytoon Tea baggers are being Isolated and pushed out. The GOp MUST moderate it's stance or it's going to lose the midterms. IF that happens, and Obama is given full control of the house and senate for his last two years, you will see an unstoppable Obama.

For the GOP to hold the house, they need to start cooperating and stop with the obstruction. If they don't the american people will take them out of power in the midterm, and they will lose far more than a pledge to Grover Norquist.

All that's left is the posturing, but the Bush tax cuts are gone, and a new tax break percentage is going to be worked out, and for every point that the wealthy keep, The GOP will have to remove a loophole for the wealthy... A little concept called pay as you go.

[GiancarloC]

Didn't Harry Truman win re-election? So I guess it's two presidents since FDR.

Yes one can hope the filibuster is changed... that'll end a lot of the nonsense. The GOP is in a hard place right now... and I just don't see them holding the house. Some will want to cooperate and some simply won't. I think the party is going to tear itself apart, not that it poses any concern for me. If they fall apart it's all deserved.

[BostonPirate]

That's an interesting note... and thanks for mentioning my oversight, because I remember Obama ran the first part of his campaign as the GOP was having it's weekly eat a candidate blood match, Obama was running against a do nothing congress, and corporate influence in the legislature.

So in many senses, I'm sure that makes him much more of a Truman presidency than any others. Historians will have a long time to dissect this, and make comparisons.

What the GOP is having a hard time grasping is that the American people, through the ballot box, have made Obama a Historic presidency for reasons that surpass the color of his skin.

When they catch up to that popular american vision of Obama, then they will start picking apart his New twice proven coalition. This is an insurgent Democratic Party in Washington, that they are facing.

Warren is just one boil that is going to fester on the ass of the GOP, and there will be many more.

[JayHawk]

You guys would be correct except that Truman ascended to the presidency after FDR died and then ran for one full term. He was not elected to both.

Todays lesson is brought to you by the letter W for wiki.......

[BostonPirate]

You guys would be correct except that Truman ascended to the presidency after FDR died and then ran for one full term. He was not elected to both.

Todays lesson is brought to you by the letter W for wiki.......

I thought there was a qualifier but I didn't know what they are... Lots of statistics being thrown around right now for perspective, but Obama is now going to be remembered for much more than being the first Black President. Now he will have a legacy and a record that others will try to reach for.

Beacon Hill has lots of whispers right now that Obama has offered Gov Deval Patrick with one of two choices.... Sec of State, or Attorney General.

The powers that be here in the commonwealth want Patrick in Justice, but only after Kerry resigns to run Dept of State, to give brown's machine a win while he still has his campaign machine intact.

It will be interesting to see. Massachusetts is making a grab for power in the Obama second term. Let's see how this plays out, and whether Massachusetts can marshal an Independent in time to beat both parties to caucus with Sanders and King.

[JayHawk]

I liked Deval Patrick a lot during the convention but most of his time running Mass I have been in other parts of the country. So i don't really know him.

I wonder if Kerry will give up having an impact for the next twelve years as a senator for a four year stint as SoS? If it were me I dont think i would want to do it... especially with a blue senate that is about to remove the filibuster obstruction or at least alter it substantially. So much room then to accomplish so much for Mass and America.

[GiancarloC]

You guys would be correct except that Truman ascended to the presidency after FDR died and then ran for one full term. He was not elected to both.

Todays lesson is brought to you by the letter W for wiki.......

You're right. I think the 1944 Election though was more for Truman than Roosevelt... democratic leaders put emphasis on finding the right Vice Presidential candidate because by that election Roosevelt's health was declining... but you're correct.

[BostonPirate]

Kerrey wants the Dept of State. Brown wants back into the senate. Patrick wants to return to the law profession.

The Senate Dems need him to stay in the senate. There will be a bit of chess playing on this stuff, IMO.

[Kulindahr]

What?

The dissatisfaction is big time with the Congress... the Congress have very low approval ratings... not the President. Of course they have every reason to fear him. They just lost a big election...

Oh and the President actually has a pretty high approval rating. Nice try though.

But individual members of Congress have good approval ratings -- good enough to get elected, that is -- which means the president has no leverage to scare them, except perhaps raising money to defeat them in the midterms. So what he's got is the possibility of going to some of the rational Republicans in the House and pointing out certain Tea Party obstructionists who are certainly going down to defeat next time, and asking which side the rational guy is really on.

That's not quite the same as sending chills down spines merely by calling.

[Kulindahr]

The GOP losses in the house were clear indications that at a local level, Loonytoon Tea baggers are being Isolated and pushed out. The GOp MUST moderate it's stance or it's going to lose the midterms. IF that happens, and Obama is given full control of the house and senate for his last two years, you will see an unstoppable Obama.

For the GOP to hold the house, they need to start cooperating and stop with the obstruction. If they don't the american people will take them out of power in the midterm, and they will lose far more than a pledge to Grover Norquist.

Good description of his leverage at this point -- you said it better than my clumsy attempt.

When they catch up to that popular american vision of Obama, then they will start picking apart his New twice proven coalition. This is an insurgent Democratic Party in Washington, that they are facing.

Did you perhaps mean "resurgent"?

[JockBoy87]

Depending on how far social issues change, this could be viewed by history as a realigning election where Republicans drop their opposition to health care, amnesty, and gay marriage.

[Rolyo85]

I wouldn't bet on it. While they will certainly get more willing to debate those issues, I don't expect them to embrace them overnight. Or - in the case of gay marriage and abortion - at all. Non-religious things like healthcare or illegal immigration are easier to get away from, but the stuff that your religious base will eat you alive for? I am not so sure.

[JayHawk]

That is the point. they need to drop the corrosive religious right and embrace socially accepted things then they can peel off some of the conservative democratic vote. I can honestly say if they embraced healthcare, immigration reform and equality then i would listen to the different fiscal ideas even more so. They do need to develop a different fiscal plan than that of Reagan and 1980. the world is different and so needs a new policy.

[JockBoy87]

I wouldn't bet on it. While they will certainly get more willing to debate those issues, I don't expect them to embrace them overnight. Or - in the case of gay marriage and abortion - at all. Non-religious things like healthcare or illegal immigration are easier to get away from, but the stuff that your religious base will eat you alive for? I am not so sure.

JayHawk is right.

The religious right is a has-been.

Moderate positions are in the ascendency.

[Kulindahr]

Depending on how far social issues change, this could be viewed by history as a realigning election where Republicans drop their opposition to health care, amnesty, and gay marriage.

Health care? No matter how it's run, a major portion of the party will see it as "socialism" if government is involved in the least way.

Amnesty? Anything that's less than throwing illegals in prison and then shipping them "back where they came from" will be regarded as treason by the huge racist element.

Gay marriage? There's a place progress is possible, if thinking Christians can get across to kneejerk Christians that government marriage is "Caesar's" and not God's, so Christians shouldn't even care (that won't work for a certain Calvinist streak which believes that God punishes nations for what laws they make).

But I don't think there will be any real change until the next election, which IMO unless they come up with some amazingly charismatic new political star, the Republicans are going to lose at least as badly as this time so long as the Democrats run someone who can tie his shoes and talk at the same time. A second Democrat in the White House in a row ought to be enough to make it clear they need to do something different.

Of course if the Democrats now start being baldly anti-Second Amendment again, that forecast goes out the window. If they keep on the current course of maintaining the status quo, it wouldn't surprise me at all if we have Democrats in the White House for the next twenty years.

[TX-Beau]

Yeah, I kinda agree. If you live in and around the Pub base, you've got a pretty good idea how they've canonized certain things or demonized them. A la a "religious" kind of belief that things like socialism is an evil commie plot.

YOU may not think healthcare is a religious issue, and they may not SAY it is, but they believe in their opinion on it in precisely the same religions way. It will not be easy for politicians to get through the lies and misinformation the base believes in religiously.

[JB3]

What?

The dissatisfaction is big time with the Congress... the Congress have very low approval ratings... not the President. Of course they have every reason to fear him. They just lost a big election...

Oh and the President actually has a pretty high approval rating. Nice try though.

55% believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. 43% disapprove of the president. And as Kuli said, individual members of the house (with a few exceptions) have pretty high approval ratings.

The republicans have nothing to fear.

[GiancarloC]

55% believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. 43% disapprove of the president. And as Kuli said, individual members of the house (with a few exceptions) have pretty high approval ratings.

The republicans have nothing to fear.

57% is a pretty good approval rating. That's about Obama's. The country has a negative approval of the Congress (House included). The pressure is on tHe GOP because they will get blamed. The republicans have everything to fear. That's where you're mistaken. If they don't shape up, the 2014 midterms will be punishing.

[JB3]

His approval is actually sitting at 51%.

And as Kuli said, which you ignored, even though Congress as an institution's approval is low, individual member's approval ratings are high.

The republicans have nothing more to fear than the Democrats do.

[GiancarloC]

That's a rapid fire response. It's not actually responding to what I said. I don't care about individual member's approval ratings. And some republicans may be vulnerable in the midterms. The republicans do have plenty to fear. They could lose the house come the midterms. And they did sustain some losses.

[Kulindahr]

That's a rapid fire response. It's not actually responding to what I said. I don't care about individual member's approval ratings. And some republicans may be vulnerable in the midterms. The republicans do have plenty to fear. They could lose the house come the midterms. And they did sustain some losses.

The only thing that matters is the individual approval ratings; very few people vote because of how they view Congress, they vote on how they view their own guy.

That said, there are a good number of House races that were very close. In those, Obama could indeed have leverage, and where Republicans were elected who are actually rational he could use an LBJ ploy: "Cooperate with me and I'll make sure you don't have any general election competition next time". For the non-rational ones, there's no leverage anyway because they think they're on "a mission from God'. If those "edge" Republicans go along with Obama, that would give him more leverage with other reasonable ones whose seats are safer.

Of course there's the other LBJ tool for members of the President's own party, if they look like they're wandering: behave, or the President will campaign against you.

Until we know the final count for the House, and how many close seats the Republicans have, it's hard to say how much of that sort of leverage Obama will be able to use. But however the numbers come out, he's got to grow a pair to manage this second term -- he's in greater need of a dose of LBJ than anything (though JFK/Reagan charisma is a necessary corollary, or the campaigning threats won't mean anything).

[bankside]

Amnesty? Anything that's less than throwing illegals in prison and then shipping them "back where they came from" will be regarded as treason by the huge racist element.

You don't have to be a racist to believe that people should obey immigration laws.

[JayHawk]

The republicans have nothing to fear.

The republicans have nothing more to fear than the Democrats do.

See this is why you are wrong.

What is Obama's line in the sand? The requirement to raise taxes on those making over 250k, right?

What happens January first if everything remains the same? That is correct sequestration cuts a trillion and expired Bush tax cuts raise taxes.

So the dems have the upper hand because the republicans no longer have a can to kick down the road. Let's see the pugs argue against a tax cut for 99% of America AFTER all the rates go up and every paper in the nation ius reporting that the average tax increase will equal ####.## for each low income american. See the reaction of the public when the GOP stands in the way of that tax so they can coddle the rich.

Equally watch them not wish to save pet projects of spending that affects jobs in their area that would be lost to across the board cuts. Watch them come up with a plan to cut spending that does so realistically while raising revenues.

No the Democrats have nothing but time on their side. And this time at the Dance I don't think Obama is going to remain a wallflower.

[GiancarloC]

The republicans have EVERYTHING to fear because if they make more wrong steps and spread more negativity, they'll be punished in the midterms. It's silly to say they don't have anything to fear... and honestly, it's totally wrong.

[chance1]

I expect an honest and transparent governance in years 5-8 - the ones promised originally

With no re-election to concern himself with

This should be easier

I expect answers - real ones - on Benghazi

I expect Repubs to help cut a deal that makes sense for all

Tim Caine talked about 500k tax plan - compromise vs 250k

[Jack Springer]

Back to the subject of the thread.

Obama has an extremely hard road ahead of him: Benghazi, Petraeus scandals, Syria, fiscal or no-fiscal cliff, increasing deficit, change of leadership in his cabinet, a Congress on both sides of the aisle where he has not built associations or friendships which makes it tough to make deals which is at the heart of a productive Congress, lack of taxes to do the grand things he wants, high unemployment, highest number of people ever to give up looking for employment, ho-hum economy, low GNP, implementation of ObamaCare where regular people will finally learn of the bad stuff along with the good stuff, how to pay his debt to the young people and minorities who elected him -- what do they want -- first thing seems to be legal pot --- maybe the first pot appreciation day at the White House, war with Mexico if pot is legalized, more and more 3am phone calls, etc.

Why would anyone want to be President.