Bush's Mandate

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al,
another point of syntax.  what you might refer to as 'notionally republican' is usually referred to in our media as 'ideologically conservative'  Not that I like that notation any better, but it is in the vernacular.  Thus, the US congress has long had an ideological majority one way or another, even during times of absolute partisan contol changeover, so your point is well taken.

what you may overlook, however, is a subtler point of rules, regulations, assignments, etc.  The Texas 5 et al may have been part of an ideological majority, either way, but for majority/minority leaders/whips, rules, etc. all Dems (excepting Traficant) and all Reps (excepting sometimes Jeffords) voted with their respective parties.  So a change from a "conservative democrat" to a republican is a real change.  believe it.

Actually it's more for the purposes of comparing elections than power in the House etc.

This is what I mean by a notional result:

If the 2002 elections had been fought on the 2004 Congressional districts [this applies to TX only] the GOP would have won the most votes in each of the six districts DeLay screwed the incumbent Dem in.
So that's six gains for the GOP via the re-districting, however as Edwards pulled a houdini in Waco, the Dems gained a seat back.
Obviously in terms of raw power crunching in the House this is different. But it makes it easier to compare electoral results.

We do that over here every Boundary Change. Makes things easier for people obsessed with elections :-)

Check this out: http://www.election.demon.co.uk/bcsum.html

[angus]

Al,
another point of syntax.  what you might refer to as 'notionally republican' is usually referred to in our media as 'ideologically conservative'  Not that I like that notation any better, but it is in the vernacular.  Thus, the US congress has long had an ideological majority one way or another, even during times of absolute partisan contol changeover, so your point is well taken.

what you may overlook, however, is a subtler point of rules, regulations, assignments, etc.  The Texas 5 et al may have been part of an ideological majority, either way, but for majority/minority leaders/whips, rules, etc. all Dems (excepting Traficant) and all Reps (excepting sometimes Jeffords) voted with their respective parties.  So a change from a "conservative democrat" to a republican is a real change.  believe it.

Actually it's more for the purposes of comparing elections than power in the House etc.

This is what I mean by a notional result:

If the 2002 elections had been fought on the 2004 Congressional districts [this applies to TX only] the GOP would have won the most votes in each of the six districts DeLay screwed the incumbent Dem in.
So that's six gains for the GOP via the re-districting, however as Edwards pulled a houdini in Waco, the Dems gained a seat back.
Obviously in terms of raw power crunching in the House this is different. But it makes it easier to compare electoral results.

We do that over here every Boundary Change. Makes things easier for people obsessed with elections :-)

Check this out: http://www.election.demon.co.uk/bcsum.html

serious ing obsession you have there.

what's plaid cymru, by the way.  I know the second word is the welsh name for wales, but is it more of a laborers party or a fatcat's party?  or is it just enthnicity that binds them?

also, in the US senate it's a clear gain for the GOP.  In the house...  well, yeah, after some thought I buy into your argument.  Still, you gotta give Delay some credit for even having the audacity to pull off that stunt.  A federal officer stepping into a state redistricting affair.  For the sole purpose of bolstering his party (forget ideology, for the moment.  I still contend that the dems/reps in this country are bigger tents and cannot be directly analogously compared to labour/tory, for example, who seem to be divided by economics, rather than all the trivialities that often divide US parties.)  The TX efforts were sleazy, but very impressive, wouldn't you say?

Mandate?  it's whatever you make of it.  silly to keep hammering on this.  I believe your earlier admonitions were right on target.  Still, the Bushies are certainly giddy this week.  and rightfully so.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

serious g obsession you have there.

what's plaid cymru, by the way.  I know the second word is the welsh name for wales, but is it more of a laborers party or a fatcat's party?  or is it just enthnicity that binds them?

Plaid Cymru translates as "Wales Party". They're basically Welsh Nationalists. Most of their votes and all of their seats (4) come from West Wales (the only majority Welsh speaking area).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't deny that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Sleazy, but very impressive" sums it up fairly well

[Nym90]

It's worth noting that the furloughs in Massachusetts were originally proposed by a Republican, and that a similar system existed in California when Reagan was Governor.

So it was not Dukakis's idea, and while one could blame him for not repealing it, one would have to apply the same standard to Reagan.

The problem was that it reinforced a perception of liberals as weak on crime, but it was an intellectually dishonest example to use.

[J. J.]

It's worth noting that the furloughs in Massachusetts were originally proposed by a Republican, and that a similar system existed in California when Reagan was Governor.

So it was not Dukakis's idea, and while one could blame him for not repealing it, one would have to apply the same standard to Reagan.

The problem was that it reinforced a perception of liberals as weak on crime, but it was an intellectually dishonest example to use.

Agreed, but the prime example, Willie Horton, was used by a PAC, not the campaign; it would be the equivalent of the 527's today.  The actual adds from the campaign dealt with the application and frequency of the furlough program (and yes, there were some problems there).

[J. J.]

Just for the record, the "mandate" isn't important, it is the perception of a mandate that is important.

[zorkpolitics]

Yes, Bush and thr Republican party togehter received a Mandate.  For sevral reasons:
1st majority President since 1988
A 3.5 Million vote plurality
Contray to nearly every second term President, gains in the Hosue and Senate
The Republicans now have their greatest number of members in the House and Senate since 1928!
Finally look at the electoral map, a sea of Red, even though only NM and IA went Republican from 2000, it changes the whole impact of the win to a visual landslide.
Bush won counties that cover 82% of America and 60% of the population.  The Democratics have retreatred into urban enclaves on the finge of the country.

[Nym90]

Yes, Bush and thr Republican party togehter received a Mandate.  For sevral reasons:
1st majority President since 1988
A 3.5 Million vote plurality
Contray to nearly every second term President, gains in the Hosue and Senate
The Republicans now have their greatest number of members in the House and Senate since 1928!
Finally look at the electoral map, a sea of Red, even though only NM and IA went Republican from 2000, it changes the whole impact of the win to a visual landslide.
Bush won counties that cover 82% of America and 60% of the population.  The Democratics have retreatred into urban enclaves on the finge of the country.

It's worth noting that the Senate and House gains were exclusively in states that Bush won; the Democrats at least managed to gain a Senate seat and 2 House seats in Bush states, while the GOP made no gains at all in Kerry states in either branch of Congress.

The GOP actually lost Senate seats nationally outside the South, and lost House seats nationally outside of Texas.

So it wasn't exactly a broad victory in the Senate and House, that merely reduced Democrats to the fringe of the country. In the Presidential election, Senate, and House, the Democrats are the majority party outside of the South. That's not to dismiss the influence and power of the South, but if the victory was such a broad sweeping mandate, Bush should have been able to extend his victory and the GOP's Congressional victories into the "blue" states, which he was unable to do.

Kerry still got 252 EVs and 48% of the vote; not bad for a Massachusetts liberal (Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the country! Would the GOP be reduced to the fringe if a candidate from Utah did that well?), especially one is boring, uncharismatic, and aloof.

Your last point about Bush counties is irrelevant; people vote, not acres, and the margin of victory in a county is just as important as who won it. Bush had much less appeal in the Kerry counties, on average,  than Kerry did in the Bush counties.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, Bush does have a mandate what he does with it, is another matter.

Does he adopt moderate policies to reach out to the 48% of Americans who voted against him or does he pursue reactionary policies to appease the Christian right?

The thing I'm finding rather ridiculous at the moment is when I read the right-wing British press, if I didn't know better I'd swear he won a landslide. He might have won the most votes ever for a US President, but it hardly makes him the most popular US President ever (as Treveor Kavanagh of The Sun would have folk believe). Not forgetting Kerry received the second most number of votes ever. A 51%-48% margin in the PV and a 286-252 margin in the EV is no landslide. On the contrary, it is a close result.

Furthermore, Mark Steyn in The Spectator loudly proclaims it is a disaster for the Democratic Party.

Can these nuts get things into a bit of perspective?

Dave

[dazzleman]

Bush had much less appeal in the Kerry counties, on average,  than Kerry did in the Bush counties.

I was thinking about this one, and I'm not sure you're right.  Thinking about it, I would say that in a close election, the person whose votes are distributed more "efficiently" can win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote.

This is what happened with Bush in 2000.  Gore won the popular vote, but his votes were concentrated more in places where he was very strong, whereas Bush's votes were spread out among more states that were carried with smaller margins (excepting the thinly populated mountain west).

This time, the results were reversed.  A swing of 65,000 votes in Ohio would have allowed Kerry to win the electoral college even while Bush had a popular vote margin 7X bigger than Gore's margin in 2000.  This suggests to me that in general, Bush carried his states more strongly, while Kerry penetrated into a larger area relative to his vote count.  This is borne out by the fact that while Bush's vote total increased significantly from 2000, his electoral vote count did not.  Kerry almost maintained Al Gore's electoral vote count, with a smaller share of the popular vote relative to Bush.  It seems then that this time, Kerry had a more efficient distribution of his votes, which translates into less appeal in the Bush states than Bush had in the Kerry states.  (I hope this all makes sense!).