Originally Posted by
cprenegade
He had no mandate, and never did a thing about SS. But Bush did win by more of a spread than he did in his first term. Still, it was not a mandate, for whatever the term "mandate" means. When America woke up the day after the election in 2004, they found that nothing had changed. Bush still president, house and senate still controlled by republicans. When America woke up this past Wednesday, they found the same thing....nothing changed. Obama still president, house still controlled by republicans, senate still controlled by democrats. A little more than half the country voted to give the president another term, a little less than half voted for him to go. I hardly would call that a mandate.
And I didn't say Obama had a mandate, just pointed out the similarities. And I've already pointed out the problems many people had with voting. Maybe Republicans will try harder next time to suppress the vote. And it's already been mentioned that the fact that Republicans lost few seats (if any) was because of gerrymandering by Republican state legislatures.
Although the Republicans won 55 percent of the House seats, they received less than half of the votes for members of the House of Representatives. Indeed, more than half-a-million more Americans voted for Democratic House candidates than for Republicans House candidates. There was no split-decision. The Democrats won both the presidential election and the House election. But the Republicans won 55 percent of the seats in the House. This seems crazy. How could this be?
I will admit though that the Democrats in Maryland, at the least, gerrymandered Bartlett out of his seat. I would like to see independent commissions set up districts after the next census.
To retaliate in kind would do nothing but intensify the existence of hate in the universe. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough, and morality enough, to cut off the chain of hate. ~~ MLK
Reply With Quote
