From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: About this "No Mandate" Garbage
Date: 6 Nov 92 06:24:58 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange

In article <1992Nov5.155826.15548@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>In article <adams.720914090@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>
>>>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>>>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>>>Today 11/4). Give it up. Sixty percent of voters said that whatever
>>>Bush was doing, please stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.
>>
>>And 60% said either Bush or Perot is better than Clinton.  No mandate.
>>
>And the Democrats lost ground in Congress as well - the Congress may in
>fact be MORE conservative now.

Dream on, people!  The Republican Party got trounced. Clinton has a
mandate.

It's not like the Dems suddenly came up with some obscure rule about the
"Electoral College" to hoodwink their opponents:  that's the score that
counts.  If you want to look at popular vote, amend the Constitution,
because that is *not* how the elections get decided.  If you are going to
scream about the "reactionary" nature of the electoral college as a
selection process, please be prepared to acknowledge that (a) when you
believed the R's had a lock on the South and the West, you loved the
system and insisted it was an 'important balance to the liberal northeast,'
and get a President who was 'truly representative of all the people,' and
(b) we yell about it every 4 years and then keep the system because in
some ways it does serve us.

Given that the name of the contest is "win the electoral college" this
election *is* a landside, and Clinton *does* have a mandate.

If you think Congress is more conservative and going to produce legislation
of a more conservative nature that Clinton will not support, you are not
simply smoking and inhaling, you are having an out-of-body/
alternate-reality experience.  Signal us when you return to our
galaxy.  We will send the shuttle to pick you up.

It is important to remember that Bush was an incumbent and that he had the
power of the incumbency and the advantage of familiarity.  In this context,
Bush, and the Republican team, lost in an overwhelming defeat which clearly
rejected their policies.  Only about 1/3 of the people would vote for
someone with the advantage of the incumbency.  That is a disaster which
gives the Republicans *nothing* of substance to hold up as a claim to authority.

If Perot is genuinely committed to the country, rather than himself, he
will throw in with Clinton and work to make constructive change.  If he
goes over to the R's he is more interested in long-term opportunities for
power than he is in immediate change.  That is the only explanation for an
early declaration that he is part of the loyal opposition in general, or a
Republican ally of Bob Dole in particular.

The arguments that "Clinton does not have a mandate" are an effort to
continue 'Government by gridlock,' and an innovative, tho somewhat sick,
effort to grasp a constructive victory from the jaws of a humiliating
defeat.  The only organized political party with a recognizeable
Congressional contingent was overrun in a rout after the voters had 12
years to get to know them.  This is not a strong hand to play from for the
R's!!  The Perotistas have no Congressional element and do not exist
outside of Perot's candidacy at the national level.  They may become such
a force but they have no claim on the government at this point.

The R's arguments about mandates are the domestic equivalent of 
how they brought us "victory" in Vietnam:  you declare a victory, then get 
out--of the White House.  It will not sell.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retire old G(eorge) to an onion farm, or any other place where you can't do
any harm.
Where things are simple and life is slow--go anywhere you fancy, Only...
Go."
	From an election ditty of the mid-1860s.  Brought to mind by GHWB.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.perot