Mandate

Whether he'll actually be able to accomplish any of this is a question for another thread. But regarding what is Trump's mandate. I would argue that since Trump won by a very tight margin that his personal mandate is minimal. It is not zero however as Obama is fond of saying elections have consequences.

1. Jobs jobs jobs

Combine Trump's support with that of Sanders and Warren and there is a huge mandate to fix this problem. The swing state voters in particular are agnostic regarding method. They don't care which economist's incomprehensible gobbly gook works, as long as someone's does

2. Trade deals

Again combining Trump/Sanders/Warren. The benefits from the trade deals as currently structured disproportionately benifit the wealthy at the expense of the working/middle class. There is a clear mandate for better deals.

3. Drain the swamp

Combining Trump/Cruz/Sanders/Warren. The voters are disgusted with business as usual and want Washington cleaned up.

4. The wall

This one is his alone. Weak mandate based on his swing state voters.

5. Social issues

The rust belt which is now must win swing state territory is economically agnostic but socially conservative. So there is a mandate from those voters not to push leftist social policies.

6. Anti-Democrat

The down ticket and state government level decimation of the Democratic Party provides a mandate to undo the most unpopular Democratic policies.

There are quite a few pushing the Clinton campaign to dispute the results in key states due to issues with ballots, voter suppression, and possible discrepancies with electronic voting machines.

Also Clinton is currently ahead in actual votes by over 1.8 million (and several states are still counting such as California, where Clinton has so far been ahead ~2:1 over Trump in votes) which mean Trump does not have a popular mandate.

Regarding his "mandate", Trump has already backtracked on several things he said he'd push for.

RE: Number 3:
He's been selecting lobbyists, former lobbyists, and other "Washington insiders" for advisory, cabinet, and Federal agency administrators. All of which means he's completely failed at that barely 2 weeks after election day.

RE: Number 6:
The evidence of this is questionable at best. For example, Wisconsin's GOP's re-districting plan has been ruled to have been unconstitutional gerrymandering. Also there is significant evidence of attempts at voter suppression (for an example, see the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling from July that the North Carolina’s voter ID laws “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wisconsin-redistricting-idUSKBN13H0SV

biochem wrote:Whether he'll actually be able to accomplish any of this is a question for another thread. But regarding what is Trump's mandate. I would argue that since Trump won by a very tight margin that his personal mandate is minimal. It is not zero however as Obama is fond of saying elections have consequences.

1. Jobs jobs jobs

Combine Trump's support with that of Sanders and Warren and there is a huge mandate to fix this problem. The swing state voters in particular are agnostic regarding method. They don't care which economist's incomprehensible gobbly gook works, as long as someone's does

2. Trade deals

Again combining Trump/Sanders/Warren. The benefits from the trade deals as currently structured disproportionately benifit the wealthy at the expense of the working/middle class. There is a clear mandate for better deals.

3. Drain the swamp

Combining Trump/Cruz/Sanders/Warren. The voters are disgusted with business as usual and want Washington cleaned up.

4. The wall

This one is his alone. Weak mandate based on his swing state voters.

5. Social issues

The rust belt which is now must win swing state territory is economically agnostic but socially conservative. So there is a mandate from those voters not to push leftist social policies.

6. Anti-Democrat

The down ticket and state government level decimation of the Democratic Party provides a mandate to undo the most unpopular Democratic policies.

Donnachaidh wrote:There are quite a few pushing the Clinton campaign to dispute the results in key states due to issues with ballots, voter suppression, and possible discrepancies with electronic voting machines.

Also Clinton is currently ahead in actual votes by over 1.8 million (and several states are still counting such as California, where Clinton has so far been ahead ~2:1 over Trump in votes) which mean Trump does not have a popular mandate.

Regarding his "mandate", Trump has already backtracked on several things he said he'd push for.

RE: Number 3:
He's been selecting lobbyists, former lobbyists, and other "Washington insiders" for advisory, cabinet, and Federal agency administrators. All of which means he's completely failed at that barely 2 weeks after election day.

RE: Number 6:
The evidence of this is questionable at best. For example, Wisconsin's GOP's re-districting plan has been ruled to have been unconstitutional gerrymandering. Also there is significant evidence of attempts at voter suppression (for an example, see the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling from July that the North Carolina’s voter ID laws “target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-wisconsin-redistricting-idUSKBN13H0SV

biochem wrote:Whether he'll actually be able to accomplish any of this is a question for another thread. But regarding what is Trump's mandate. I would argue that since Trump won by a very tight margin that his personal mandate is minimal. It is not zero however as Obama is fond of saying elections have consequences.

1. Jobs jobs jobs

Combine Trump's support with that of Sanders and Warren and there is a huge mandate to fix this problem. The swing state voters in particular are agnostic regarding method. They don't care which economist's incomprehensible gobbly gook works, as long as someone's does

2. Trade deals

Again combining Trump/Sanders/Warren. The benefits from the trade deals as currently structured disproportionately benifit the wealthy at the expense of the working/middle class. There is a clear mandate for better deals.

3. Drain the swamp

Combining Trump/Cruz/Sanders/Warren. The voters are disgusted with business as usual and want Washington cleaned up.

4. The wall

This one is his alone. Weak mandate based on his swing state voters.

5. Social issues

The rust belt which is now must win swing state territory is economically agnostic but socially conservative. So there is a mandate from those voters not to push leftist social policies.

6. Anti-Democrat

The down ticket and state government level decimation of the Democratic Party provides a mandate to undo the most unpopular Democratic policies.

Dubya lost the popular vote, eeked Florida, hence the EC, by a whisker. Didn't stop him declaring a MANDATE, freezing out hostile press (or the threat thereof)and using every opportunity to advance his neo-con agenda.

Only question is will Trump actually go with GHWBs conservatism with a pretty face, or just show everyone the true face of conservatism. Unfortunately all we have is Trump's public pronouncements which change by the hour.

If one never speaks the truth, how can anyone trust what (s)he says?

biochem wrote:6. Anti-Democrat

The down ticket and state government level decimation of the Democratic Party provides a mandate to undo the most unpopular Democratic policies.

Skipping over the rest as that would be a discussion of whether he can accomplish them (or even intends to try)...

I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a "decimation" at the down ticket level - the Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House, just not enough to flip them (and there was never a plausible chance of them flipping the latter and at best even odds for the former, IIRC).

If Wikipedia is to be relied upon, the only places the Republicans gained seats were the Presidency itself and 3 gubernatorial races (2 if the Democratic candidate in NC wins, which is what the current vote counts indicate, although McRory is refusing to concede); state Houses don't seem to have changed at all and the Republicans lost the NH Senate.

Well he won by more than the bare minimum so yeah, he does have some sort of mandate.

Real question is how much of what he said does he actually intend to try and do.

Said elsewhere, that voting irregularity has to be investigated. How it's investigated will probably tell more than the result.
Shouldn't use it to challange the result though, unless something much more definate or agregious turns up.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

All sensible comments here. Personally I regard a mandate as a clear cut victory, on well defined issues, so not a mandate.
As to can he ethically implement his proposals, well yes, except where they are illegal (like involving racial discrimination and such), but be prepared for a fight.
Taking a hypothetical situation, if there emerges a case to challenge the election due to irregularities, I believe the Democrats shouldn't do so. Their best way forward is to let Trump do stuff then shoot it down. If they did manage to block his presidency, then millions would believe they were robbed by the machine. But over time they will come to realize that many of his promises are unachievable.

Eyal wrote:

biochem wrote:6. Anti-Democrat

The down ticket and state government level decimation of the Democratic Party provides a mandate to undo the most unpopular Democratic policies.

Skipping over the rest as that would be a discussion of whether he can accomplish them (or even intends to try)...

I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a "decimation" at the down ticket level - the Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House, just not enough to flip them (and there was never a plausible chance of them flipping the latter and at best even odds for the former, IIRC).

If Wikipedia is to be relied upon, the only places the Republicans gained seats were the Presidency itself and 3 gubernatorial races (2 if the Democratic candidate in NC wins, which is what the current vote counts indicate, although McRory is refusing to concede); state Houses don't seem to have changed at all and the Republicans lost the NH Senate.

I should have been more clear. The decimation wasn't this election alone, it is the cumulative effect of the last 3 elections (2010, 2012, 2014). This election's contribution to the pattern was the retention of previous gains with mild improvement on them.

Currently

US Senate - Republican
US House - Republican

Governors - 33 Republican; 15 Democrat, 1 Independent; 1 undecided (NC)

State legislatures - Republicans control both House and Senate in 32 states; Democrats control them in 13 states with 5 states divided (one party in 1 chamber the other party in the other chamber)

The last time the Democrats were in a position this bad was 88 years ago in 1928.

The statisticians have debunked the election irregularity argument. See below

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dem ... n-results/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... as-rigged/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ng-report/

biochem wrote:I should have been more clear. The decimation wasn't this election alone, it is the cumulative effect of the last 3 elections (2010, 2012, 2014). This election's contribution to the pattern was the retention of previous gains with mild improvement on them.

Currently

US Senate - Republican
US House - Republican

Governors - 33 Republican; 15 Democrat, 1 Independent; 1 undecided (NC)

State legislatures - Republicans control both House and Senate in 32 states; Democrats control them in 13 states with 5 states divided (one party in 1 chamber the other party in the other chamber)

The last time the Democrats were in a position this bad was 88 years ago in 1928.

It the comes down to how you define a mandate. Is it given to whoever won under the rules or to whoever has a large number of supporters?

Your system (at least at the federal level) essentially rewards having moderate support spread over a wide area compared to having great support which is concentrated in a small area. Consider:

1 - Presidency - since a state's electoral college votes are usually winner takes all, having 51% support in a number of smallish states is more effective than having 90% support in a considerably larger state. Case in point this election, where Trump won with a significant advantage in the EC yet lost the popular vote (as of current counts) by the third largest margin in US history (and the more recent of the other two was over a century ago and they involved far fewer total votes) if you go by percentage; the first by far if you go by absolute numbers instead.
2 - Senate - this is explicitly its function, given that it gives equal apportionment to each state regardless of population.
3 - Congress - Congressional elections, at least as they;re done now, also favor wide support over deep support. Gerrymandering means that it's more "profitable" to have support from a small distributed population. I can't remember which state it was, but I remember an example from 2014 where a state's popular voe massively favored the Democrats (as in at least a +10% margin) - but the Republicans won an overwhelming number of Congressional seats.

Eyal wrote:

biochem wrote:I should have been more clear. The decimation wasn't this election alone, it is the cumulative effect of the last 3 elections (2010, 2012, 2014). This election's contribution to the pattern was the retention of previous gains with mild improvement on them.

Currently

US Senate - Republican
US House - Republican

Governors - 33 Republican; 15 Democrat, 1 Independent; 1 undecided (NC)

State legislatures - Republicans control both House and Senate in 32 states; Democrats control them in 13 states with 5 states divided (one party in 1 chamber the other party in the other chamber)

The last time the Democrats were in a position this bad was 88 years ago in 1928.

It the comes down to how you define a mandate. Is it given to whoever won under the rules or to whoever has a large number of supporters?

Your system (at least at the federal level) essentially rewards having moderate support spread over a wide area compared to having great support which is concentrated in a small area. Consider:

1 - Presidency - since a state's electoral college votes are usually winner takes all, having 51% support in a number of smallish states is more effective than having 90% support in a considerably larger state. Case in point this election, where Trump won with a significant advantage in the EC yet lost the popular vote (as of current counts) by the third largest margin in US history (and the more recent of the other two was over a century ago and they involved far fewer total votes) if you go by percentage; the first by far if you go by absolute numbers instead.
2 - Senate - this is explicitly its function, given that it gives equal apportionment to each state regardless of population.
3 - Congress - Congressional elections, at least as they;re done now, also favor wide support over deep support. Gerrymandering means that it's more "profitable" to have support from a small distributed population. I can't remember which state it was, but I remember an example from 2014 where a state's popular voe massively favored the Democrats (as in at least a +10% margin) - but the Republicans won an overwhelming number of Congressional seats.

Which speaks to voter fraud via minority voter dilution. make several 60-40 republican districts and one 90-10 Democrat one. easy to spot the outlier, it looks like Aldridge Gerry's salimander.